16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017

Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Paper N 4016
Registration Code: S-M1464326518

2015 Three-dimensional Shaking Table Test of a 10-story Reinforced Concrete

Building on the E-Defense
Part 3: Base Slip and Base Fixed Test Results

Y. Tosauchi(1) , E. Sato(2) , K. Fukuyama(3) , T. Inoue(4), K. Kajiwara(5)

H. Shiohara(6) , T. Kabeyasawa(7) , T. Nagae(8) , H. Fukuyama(9) , T. Kabeyasawa(10) , T. Mukai(11)
(1) Researcher, Fujita Corporation, yusuke.tosauchi@fujita.co.jp
(2) Chief Researcher, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience, eiji@bosai.go.jp
(3) Visiting researcher, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience, fuku-kn@bosai.go.jp
(4) Vice director, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience, dinoue@bosai.go.jp
(5) Director, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience, kaji@bosai.go.jp
(6) Professor, The University of Tokyo, shiohara@arch.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
(7) Professor, Earthquake Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, kabe@eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp
(8) Associate professor, Nagoya University, nagae@nagoya-u.jp
(9) Director, National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, fukuyama-h92ta@nilim.go.jp
(10) Associate professor, Tokyo Metropolitan University, tosikazu@tmu.ac.jp
(11) Senior Researcher, Building Research Institute, t_mukai@kenken.go.jp

Abstract
The E-Defense, which is the worlds largest three-dimensional (3D) full-scale earthquake shaking table test facility, was
built by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED) with the aim of shedding light on
the failure mechanisms of full-scale structures during earthquakes and for verifying the effects of seis mic retrofitting. Since
its start of operations in April 2005, a wide variety of structures have been tested on this facility.
In December 2015, NIED tested a 10-story reinforced concrete building frame on the E-Defense in order to gain building
engineering knowledge that will facilitate continued use of damaged buildings after a major earthquake. In this experiment,
data were obtained from a structure equipped with a base slip mechanism in order to examine the efficacy of the base slip
method. After the base slip construction test, the base of the same specimen was fixed in place to simulate conventional
construction conditions and testing was conducted in order to compare fixed-in-place behavior with the base slip response
behavior, determine the damage process of each member, and examine damage and response evaluation methods.
This paper discusses the results of the base slip and fixed base tests. In the base slip construction test, the base was
observed slipping while base uplift occurred, which may have caused the base to slip with torsional movement. The
maximum story drift angle generated in the specimen under 100% amplitude of the JMA-Kobe excitation was 0.0060 rad
for the base slip construction test, which is relatively small compared to 0.0305 rad, which was measured during the fixed
specimen foundation test. Additionally, for both tests, the story shear force generated at each floor is clearly larger when
compared to the story shear force calculated during the specimen design for the same story drift angle. In the fixed base test,
the beam and column main reinforcements that were arranged in cross-shaped joints yielded, and damage was concentrated
at beam-column joints from the 3rd to 5th floors, where relatively large story drift angles were generated.

Keywords: Earthquake resistance, Damage mitigation, Base slip

 16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

1. Introduction
The E-Defense, which is the worlds largest three-dimensional (3D) full-scale earthquake shaking table test
facility, was built by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED) with the
aim of shedding light on the failure mechanisms of full-scale structures during earthquakes and for verifying the
effects of seismic retrofitting. Since its start of operations in April 2005, a wide variety of structures have been
tested on this facility.
As part of its Social Infrastructure Research Utilizing the 3D Full-Scale Earthquake Testing Facility project,
NIED conducted shaking table tests on a 10-story reinforced concrete building frame in December 2015.
Previously, NIED had also conducted numerous tests on reinforced concrete buildings using the E-Defense. In
2006, two sets of experiments were conducted on reinforced concrete buildings fabricated based on design
methods common around 1970[1],[2]. In the experiment using a six-story specimen, the collapse phenomena due
to shear failure of the 1st story shear wall and short columns were observed. The experiment using a three-story
specimen demonstrated the mitigating effect on ground motion input by the spread foundation slippage and the
effectiveness of seismic retrofitting with external frames.
In 2010, tests were carried out on a four-story reinforced concrete building fabricated according to current
standards, in which the damage process of each member and failure behavior under seismic motion were
observed, and an evaluation of the building frame response during an earthquake was performed[3],[4]. In that
experiment, the building was still self-supporting after being subjected to ground motion replicating the Southern
Hyogo Prefecture Earthquake, which showed that it had sufficient seismic capacity in terms of being able to
avoid building collapse. Based on the damage observed at the shear wall bottom and beam-column joints of the
frame, continued use of the building, repair costs, and other economic issues that arise in such conditions were
identified. In the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, which was centered off the Pacific coast of Tohoku, there
were numerous cases of buildings that incurred damage in nonstructural members that made the continued use of
those buildings difficult, even though they did not collapse[5].
The aim of the test carried out by NIED in 2015 was to gain building engineering knowledge that will enable
continued use of buildings after a major earthquake. Data were obtained from the test on base slip construction
in order to examine it as a method of enabling continued use of buildings damaged in earthquakes. Additionally,
the building specimen was tested under conventional fixed base conditions in order to compare its response
behavior with that from the base slip construction method, determine the damage process of each member, and
examine damage and response evaluation methods.
This paper will first describe the ground motion used in the tests for base slip construction and fixed base
condition, after which the specimen response acceleration and story drift measured during the tests will be
presented and compared with the analysis performed during the design stage. In addition, the base slip behavior
will be shown and the base slip accompanied by torsional movement and friction coefficient will be considered.
Furthermore, the damaged condition of the specimen will be presented, and the damaged conditions from the
base slip construction and fixed base condition tests will be compared. The damage at beam-column joints,
which showed pronounced failure, will be discussed as well.

2
 16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

2. Excitation Program
The ground motion observed at JMAs Kobe Marine Meteorological Observatory during the Southern Hyogo
Prefecture Earthquake[6] (hereinafter referred to as JMA-Kobe) was used for the excitation waves. The
maximum acceleration of the seismic motion was 8.18 m/s2 in the north-south (NS) direction, 6.17 m/s2 in the
east-west (EW) direction, and 3.32 m/s2 in the up-down (UD) direction, as shown in Fig. 1. The excitation tests
were performed in the program sequence shown in Table 1, with gradually increasing amplitude of vibration for
both test cases, that is, the base slip construction test and the base fixed test.
However, for the fixed base condition test, a test at 60% amplitude of JMA-Kobe was performed to simulate
an aftershock after the 100% amplitude excitation. The tests were conducted with the input seismic wave
excitations applied simultaneously in three directions: the NS component of JMA-Kobe in the simple frame
direction (hereinafter referred to as the frame direction), the EW component in the direction of the frame with
multi-story shear wall (hereinafter referred to as the wall direction), as well as the UD direction, as shown in
Figs. 1 and 2. In addition, white noise excitations were applied in each direction, before and after each excitation,
to estimate the natural period of the specimen.

10 30
Max 8.18m/s 2 (b) JMA-Kobe NS
5 100%
Acc. [m/s ]
2

20

S [m/s ]
2
(a) JMA-Kobe NS 100% h=0.05
0

P A
10
-5

-10 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3
10 30
Max 6.17m/s 2 (d) JMA-Kobe EW
5 100%
Acc. [m/s ]
2

20
S [m/s ]
2

(c) JMA-Kobe EW 100% h=0.05

0
P A

10
-5

-10 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3
10 30
Max 3.32m/s 2 (f) JMA-Kobe UD
5 100%
Acc. [m/s ]
2

20
S [m/s ]
2

(e) JMA-Kobe UD 100% h=0.05

0
P A

10
-5

-10 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3
Time [s] Period [s]

Fig. 1: Input wave time history and response spectrum

3
 16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Table 1: Test case and input wave 2

[m/s ]
10
No. Test case Inp ut wave M agnification
JMA-Kobe 100%

Frame direction
1 10% 5
2 25%
Base slip

NS
3 50% 0
4 100%
5 JM A-Kobe 10% -5
6 25%
7 Fixed base 50% -10
-10 -5 0 5 10
2
8 100% EW [m/s ]
9 60% Wall direction
Fig. 2: Orbit of input acceleration

3. Specimen Response
Table 2 shows the natural period based on excitation by white noise after each seismic wave excitation, as
well as the maximum story drift angle resulting from each excitation. The natural period before excitation tests
of the specimen mounted on the shaking table is 0.57 s in both the frame and wall directions. The maximum
response acceleration distributions at each story in the two test cases are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The maximum
acceleration generated at each story in the base slip construction test case where slippage occurred is smaller
than the base fixed test of the same amplitude from a few percent to a maximum of about 50%.
These observations from the base slip and base fixed tests for the same amplitude of excitation confirm that
the acceleration produced in the building tends to be reduced by the base slippage. The maximum story drift
angle distributions are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The maximum story drift angle under 100% amplitude of JMA-
Kobe excitation for the base slip test is 0.0060 rad in the frame direction, which is a little over the limit of 1/200
(0.0050 rad) in allowable stress design for temporary loading.
For the wall direction, the value is 0.0030 rad, which is only 50% of the maximum deformation in the frame
direction. The natural period after testing under the same excitation is 0.87 s in the frame direction and 0.69 s in
the wall direction. After the base slip construction test, the natural period of the specimen right after fixing the
specimen foundation to the shaking table with prestressing rods is 0.85 s in the frame direction and 0.58 s in the
wall direction, which shows that the natural period changes with the change in base fixing condition. The natural
period after excitation with 100% amplitude of JMA-Kobe in the fixed base condition test is longer at 2.43 s in
the frame direction and 1.13 s in the wall direction. As for the specimen response at this time, the maximum
story drift angle generated is 0.0305 rad in the frame direction and 0.0150 rad in the wall direction.
Figure 7 shows the story shear force and story drift angle at the 1st floor under 100% amplitude excitation for
each test case, together with results from the pushover analysis. The maximum story shear in the base slip
construction test is about 60% in the frame direction and about 40% in the wall direction of those in the fixed
base condition. Figure 8 shows the pushover analysis results during the specimen structural design and the
maximum response values (when the base was fixed and when it was slipping) during the 100% amplitude
excitation test. Note that the pushover analysis results shown in Figs. 7 and 8 were generated using the BRAIN
III structural design system[7]. Similar to the usual horizontal load bearing capacity calculation, external forces
were assumed based on the Ai distribution. Additionally, reinforcement yield strength were considered as 1.1
times the standard values, and top slab rebar within 1 m on one side was considered in the beam strength
calculation. The story shear forces obtained from the tests clearly exceed the results from pushover analysis for
the same drift angle in all the stories.

4
 16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

Table 2: Natural period and maximum story drift angle

Natural Period [s] Maximum story drift angle [rad]
No. Input wave Test case
Frame direction Wall direct ion Frame direction Wall direct ion
- Initial 0.57 0.57 - -
1 10% 0.61 0.61 0.0011 0.0006
2 25% Base slip 0.69 0.63 0.0026 0.0010
JMA-Kobe
3 50% 0.76 0.64 0.0041 0.0017
4 100% 0.87 0.69 0.0060 0.0030
- Initial 0.85 0.58 - -
5 10% 0.87 0.58 0.0028 0.0008
6 25% Fixed base 0.94 0.60 0.0075 0.0022
7 JMA-Kobe 50% 1.24 0.74 0.0171 0.0065
8 100% 2.43 1.13 0.0305 0.0150
9 60% 2.62 1.19 0.0131 0.0122

15.3m/s2 12.4 m/s2

10 10
10 10 9 9
9 9 8 8
8 8
7 7
7 7
6 6
6 6
Story

5 5 5 JMA-Kobe Story 5 JMA-Kobe

Story

Story

4 JMA-Kobe 4 JMA-Kobe 4 0.0060rad 10% 4 0.0030rad 10%

10% 10% 25% 25%
3 3 3 3
25% 25% 50% 50%
2 50% 2 50% 2 100% 2 100%
1 100% 1 100% 1 1
(a) Frame direction (b) Wall direction
1FL (a) Frame direction 1FL (b) Wall direction 0 0
Table Table 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Story drift angle [rad] Story drift angle [rad]
Max acc. [m/s2] Max acc. [m/s2]

Fig. 3: Maximum acceleration of base slip test Fig. 5: Maximum story drift angle of base slip test
18.8m/s 2 13.5m/s2
10 10
9 9 10 10
JMA-Kobe
8 8 9 9
10%
7 7 8 25% 8
6 6 50%
7 100% 7
5 5
Story

Story

JMA-Kobe JMA-Kobe 6 6
4 4
Story

Story

10% 10% 5 5 JMA-Kobe

3 25% 3 25%
4 0.03 05rad 4 0.01 50 rad 10%
2 50% 2 50%
25%
1 100% 1 100% 3 3
50%
1FL (a) Frame direction 1FL (b) Wall direction 2 2 100%
Table Table 1 (a) Frame direction 1 (b) Wall direction
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Max acc. [m/s2] Max acc. [m/s2] 0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Story drift angle [rad] Story drift angle [rad]

Fig. 4: Maximum acceleration of base fixed test Fig. 6: Maximum story drift angle of base fixed test

5
 16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

6 Dynamic test
Push over analsys
Shear force [MN]

4
2
6 6
0 Base slip test JMA-Kobe100%
(a) Base slip (b) Base slip Base fix test JMA-Kobe100%
-2 5 Push over analsys 5
JMA-Kobe 100% JMA-Kobe 100%
-4 Frame direction Wall direction 2FL

Shear force [MN]

4 4 3FL
-6
5FL
6 2FL 3FL
3 4FL 3 7FL
Shear force [MN]

4 5FL
6FL 8FL
2 7FL
2 8FL 2 9FL
0 9FL 10FL
(c) Fixed base (d) Fixed base 10FL
-2 1 1 RFL
JMA-Kobe 100% JMA-Kobe 100% RFL
-4 Frame direction Wall direction 0 0
-6 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 Story drift angle [rad] Story drift angle [rad]
Story drift angle [rad] Story drift angle [rad]

Fig. 7: Shear force and story drift angle at 1st story Fig. 8: Shear force and story drift angle

4. Base Slip
Figures 9(a) to (d) show the amount of base slippage from the position shown in Fig. 11(e). The specimen
foundation slipped as it twisted such that, after excitation with 50% amplitude of JMA-Kobe, the specimen
foundation had rotated about 0.9 degrees counterclockwise. Since an inclination in slip displacement occurred at
25% and 50% amplitude excitations, the phase of the JMA-Kobe waves was reversed before conducting the
100% amplitude excitation test in order to turn the specimens center of gravity in the direction of its original
position. This resulted in the inclination of rotational motion progressing to about 1.8 degrees counterclockwise
and resulted in contact with the cushioning, even though the center of gravity did move toward its original
position.
In the base slip test, the friction coefficient while the base is slipping is estimated from the acceleration and
weight at each story. The horizontal inertial force is obtained by summing the story weights multiplied by the
acceleration generated at each story. Figures 10(a) to (c) show the friction force and slip amount of the center of
gravity at each base slip direction, and Figs. 10(d) to (f) show the friction coefficient calculated from the
combination of the two horizontal components and base slip velocity. The base slip velocity is given as the
relative velocity of the 1st floor with respect to the shaking table velocity. Each velocity is obtained by
integrating the measured acceleration by the average acceleration method. The friction coefficient is estimated
as follows
R

Base
mi Hi M g M Z Equation (1)

where mi is the weigh at each story, Hi is the horizontal acceleration at each story, M is the total weight of the
specimen, g is the gravitational acceleration, and Z is the vertical acceleration at the shaking table. The large
maximum friction coefficient during the 100% amplitude of JMA-Kobe excitation can be attributed to the
collision between the specimen foundation and cushioning. Under the 25% and 50% excitations where collision
did not occur, the coefficient of static friction is in the range of 0.21 to 0.23 at the start of base slippage, and the
coefficient of kinetic friction is in approximately the range 0.1 to 0.2 while the base is slipping. The friction
coefficient fluctuates, which is in contrast to the comparatively stable friction coefficient found in previous
studies[8]. The motion of the base during base slippage is shown in Fig. 11. The vertical displacement of 1D
shown in Fig. 11(d) has no data after 17 s because of instrumentation damage. In the contour maps in Figs. 11(f)
and (g), displacements in locations other than the instrumentation points (12 points in total with 4 points on each
side) are interpolated and plotted. Note that base horizontal displacements are shown magnified fivefold. The

6
 16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

specimen foundation experienced a maximum of approximately 14 mm uplift under 25% amplitude excitation,
29 mm uplift under 50% amplitude excitation, and 40 mm uplift under 100% excitation, as shown in Fig. 11(c).
It can be seen from Figs. 11(f) and (g) that during base slippage, uplift occurs at the base on the opposite side
of the slip direction, which implies that there are large fluctuations in vertical load supported by each bearing.
Since friction coefficients generally tend to decrease as bearing pressure increases[9], the extreme bearing
pressure differences between the bearing supports caused various bearings to exhibit different friction
coefficients, which may be the reason why stable friction coefficients were not obtained. Moreover, the center of
rigidity of friction resistance against base slippage moved away from the specimens center of gravity due to
uplift, which may be a factor in why the occurrence of base slippage was accompanied by rotational movement.

600 600
(a) 1D N (b) 4D N (e) Center N 10%
300 300
Disp. [mm]

25%
E E E 50%
0 0 100%

-300 -300 Shape symbols mark

ends of tests
-600 -600
-600 -300 0 300 600 -600 -300 0
-600 -300 0 300 600 300 600
Disp. [mm]
600 3
(c) 1A N (d) 4A N 2 (f) Rotation angle
Angle [degree]

300
Disp. [mm]

E E 1
0 0
-1
-300
Contact with the cushioning -2
-600 -3
-600 -300 0 300 600 -600 -300 0 300 600 0 55 110 165 220
Disp. [mm] Disp. [mm] Time [s]
Fig. 9: Base slip displacement

4 4 4
Friction force [MN]

(a) JMA-Kobe 25% (b) JMA-Kobe 50% (c) JMA-Kobe 100%

2 2 2

0 0 0

-2 -2 -2
Frame direction
-4 Wall direction -4 -4
-300 -200 -100 0 100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 -400 -300 -200 -100 0
Disp. [mm] Disp. [mm] Disp. [mm]
0.5 0.5 0.5
Friction coefficient

(d) JMA-Kobe 25% (e) JMA-Kobe 50% (f) JMA-Kobe 100%

0.4 0.4 0.4
Two horizontal
0.3 Two horizontal 0.3 Two horizontal 0.3 components
components components
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Slip vel. [m/s] Slip vel. [m/s] Slip vel. [m/s]
Fig. 10: Friction coefficient

7
 16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

0 60
Uplift
(a) Frame direction slip dis. 50 (c) Foundation uplift 1A, 4D (mm)
-100 40 (i) 40
Dis. [mm]

Dis. [mm]
1A 4D
30
-200 (ii) 4D 1D
20 30
(i) 10
-300
(ii) 0 20
-400 -10
0 60 10
50 (d) Foundation uplift 1D, 4A Slip direction
(b) Wall direction slip dis.
-100 40 0
Dis. [mm]

Dis. [mm] 1D (After 17 s : No data) 4A

30 4A
-200 1A
20
(i) 10
-300 (f) At time (i)
0
(ii)
-400 -10
10 20 30 40 Uplift
Time [s] (mm)
4D 40

D 1D 30
Slip direction
20
C
10
B
0
A 4A
1A
1 2 3 4
(g) At time (ii)
(e) Plan

Fig. 11: Base slip motion of JMA-Kobe 100%

5. Specimen Damege
Since the amount of maximum deformation is just a little over 1/200 in the base slip construction test, there
were only hairline cracks of 0.05 mm widths or less in the midstory beam ends, floor slabs, and column
midsections after excitation. In the base fixed test under 50% amplitude excitation, the interstory drift peaked at
0.0171 rad in the frame direction. From the damage observed after excitation shown in Fig. 12, it can be seen
that the number of cracks have increased. Cracks found at beam ends and beam-column joints were up to around
0.15 mm wide.
Under 100% amplitude excitation, the beam-column joint failure progressed further until the concrete cover
spalled, whereas in the wall direction, the compression side concrete at the base of the multi-story shear wall
started to crush. Moreover, concrete cover spalling was observed at the base of the 1st floor corner column (Figs.
13(a) to (c)).
In Table 3, row (a) shows the shear verification ratio, which is defined as the ratio of shear force to shear
strength of beam-column joints based on material strengths assumed in the design, and row (b) shows the ratio
calculated using concrete strengths during the test and reinforcement yield strengths based on materials testing.
Similar to the specimen design, the shear strengths of beam-column joints were calculated based on the Design
Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based on Inelastic Displacement
Concept[10]. Additionally, the shear forces acting on beam-column joints were calculated assuming plastic
hinges formed at the beam ends.
Compared to row (a), larger margins were evaluated for row (b), which reflects the material properties during
the test. However, damage was concentrated in the beam-column joints in the test. Furthermore, column main
reinforcements and joint hoops were partly exposed due to concrete cover spalling. This degree of damage in
beam-column joints is thought to fall under damage level III or IV in the frame damage level classification used

8
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

in the Japan Institute of Architects (JIA) Post-Earthquake Temporary Risk Evaluation of Damaged Buildings,
where the building itself is not leaning but the level of damage can be assessed as moderate or heavy.
Accordingly, the damage in beam-column joints is discussed here. Figure 14 shows the ratio of column to
beam moment capacity calculated based on the conditions during pushover analysis in the specimen design,
while Fig. 15 shows the bar arrangement details at the 4th story beam-column joint where damage was significant.
The joint hoops are 2, 2-D10@150. Figure 16 shows the main reinforcement of beam 5G1 and the maximum
tensile strains in the 5th floor slab reinforcement. The bottom rebar yielded in beam 5G1. Assuming that the
reinforcement yield strain is 0.2%, the top beam rebar and slab reinforcement adjacent to beam 5G1 (both top
and bottom) exceed the yield strain. Strains close to yielding were generated in the other slab reinforcements as
well. Furthermore, roughly equal strains were produced between the pairs of top and bottom slab reinforcement.
Previous studies have shown that bottom slab rebar embedded in the transverse beam can also contribute to
beam strength[11]. Hence, ratios of column to beam moment capacity during the test were thought to be actually
closer to unity because of the effect of slab reinforcements. In rows (a) and (b) of Table 3, the strengths of the
beams main reinforcement and the top slab rebar within 1 m of the beam side were taken into account in
calculating the shear acting on the beam-column joint. On the other hand, in row (c) of Table 3, the shear margin
was calculated while assuming that slab reinforcements, both top and bottom rebar, up to the center of span and
within the cantilever slab, contribute to the shear acting on the beam-column joint. Under this condition, the
ratios of shear force to shear strength of cross-shaped joints from the 3rd to 5th stories, which showed particularly
significant damage, are 0.66 to 0.77. Even with this conditional assumption, the verification ratios are less than
unity.
The hysteretic behavior of the 4th story, where the maximum story drift angle is large, and which showed
pronounced beam-column joint damage, is shown in Figs. 17(b) to (d). In the 100% amplitude excitation in Fig.
17(c), the hysteresis loop going toward point b or point c is spindle-shaped, with a story drift angle of 0.028 rad
(point b) and a beam-column joint shear deformation angle of 0.008 rad (Fig. 17(a)). Thereafter, the succeeding
cycles shifted into a slip hysteresis.
In addition, the main reinforcements yielded at beams and columns attached to the cross-shaped joints from
the 3rd to 5th stories, where damage was concentrated. Based on these conditions, the damage in beam-column
joints from this experiment may be considered as falling under the beam-column joint yielding condition shown
by Kusuhara et al.[12].

1FL 4FL
(i) Base slip 50% (i) Base slip 50%

1FL 4FL
(ii) Fixed base 50% (ii) Fixed base 50%
(a) 1F 4A-4D West side (b) 4F 1A-4A North side
Fig. 12: Damage observation results

9
 16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

(a) 4th story beam-column joint (b) 1st floor column base (c) 1st floor wall base
Fig. 13: Specimen damage

Load direction Wall direction

5G7

5G7
0.76 0.52 0.54 0.66
Frame direction
1.38 1.06 1.14 1.06 5G1 5G2

5C2

4C2
1.04 1.04 1.09 1.81

1.38 1.13 1.17 2.27 C2

cS1

Wall direction
5FL cS1

Vertical direction
1.30 1.03 1.20 2.71
5C2
1.25 1.18 1.23 2.54

1.21 1.22 1.16 2.98 5G1 5G2 5FL

1.09 1.15 1.19 3.17

1.19 1.09 1.23 2.52

Vertical direction
1.02 1.34 1.52 3.74
4C2 Frame direction

Fig. 14: Ratio of column to beam moment capacity Fig. 15: Detailed view of beam-column joint

Table 3: Shear force / Shear strength of beam-column joint

Story 1 2 3 4 5
Location C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2
(a) 0.74 0.60 0.85 0.69 0.87 0.82 0.87 0.82 0.87 0.82
(b) 0.54 0.44 0.60 0.49 0.61 0.57 0.69 0.65 0.72 0.67
(c) 0.66 0.50 0.74 0.56 0.77 0.66 0.87 0.74 0.90 0.77
Story 6 7 8 9 10
Location C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2
(a) 0.84 0.77 0.84 0.77 0.73 0.65 0.73 0.65 0.48 0.42
(b) 0.53 0.49 0.57 0.52 0.47 0.42 0.53 0.47 0.36 0.31
(c) 0.70 0.58 0.76 0.62 0.65 0.51 0.73 0.57 0.53 0.39

10
 16 th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

2,168 1,846 1,830 1,476

2,316

5G4
5G1 2,093 1,777 2,157 1,578
11,577
10-6
1,000

Fig. 16: Maximum strain of JMA-Kobe 100%

0.04
b d f (a) 4 th story time history of JMA-Kobe100%
0.02 h
Angle [rad]

0.00

-0.02 a Joint
c i
e g 4th story drift
-0.04
10 15 20 25 30
Time [s]

4,000 b
d
Shear force [kN]

f
2,000
h
0
i
-2,000 (b) 4th story drift g (c) 4th story drift (d) 4th story drift
JMA-Kobe 50% JMA-Kobe 100% JMA-Kobe 60%
e c a
-4,000
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Story drift angle [rad] Story drift angle [rad] Story drift angle [rad]
Fig. 17: Hysteretic behavior of 4th story

6. CONCLUSIONS
The following can be concluded from the data obtained from shaking table tests on a 10-story reinforced
concrete building:
- In this experiment, base slippage caused the external forces acting on the specimen to be smaller, thereby
making the story drift angles smaller and reducing damage to the frame.
- base slippage occurred together with base uplift, seismic forces acted on the specimen when the slip
resistance center of rigidity had moved away from the specimens center of gravity, thereby causing the
foundation to move rotationally.
- The story shear force generated at each floor when the base was fixed was larger compared to the story
shear force calculated during the specimen design for the same deformation.
- Damage was concentrated in the cross-shaped beam-column joints where column-to-beam flexural strength
ratios are slightly greater than unity.

11
 16th World Conference on Earthquake, 16WCEE 2017
Santiago Chile, January 9th to 13th 2017

References
[1] Taizo Matsumori, Shirai Kazutaka, Toshimi Kabeyasawa (2007): Study on seismic performance of R/C wall-
frame structures based on large-scale shaking table test -outline of full-scale 6-story specimen and tri-axial
shaking table test, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, AIJ, No. 614, 85-90 [in Japanese]
[2] Toshikazu Kabeyasawa, Toshimi Kabeyasawa, Taizo Matsumori, Toshinori Kabeyasawa, Yousok Kim
(2008): Shake table test on a full-scale three-story reinforced concrete building structure, Journal of Structural
and Construction Engineering, AIJ, Vol. 73 No. 631, 1833-1840 [in Japanese]
[3] Takuya Nagae, Kenichi Tahara, Kunio Fukuyama, Taizo Matsumori, Hitoshi Shiohara, Toshimi Kabeyasawa,
Susumu Kono, Minehiro Nishiyama, Isao Nishiyama (2011): Large-scale shaking table tests on a four-story
RC building, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, Vol. 76 No. 669, 1961-1970 [in Japanese]
[4] Kenichi Tahara, Takuya Nagae, Kunio Fukuyama, Taizo Matsumori (2013): First mode response assessment
for 4-story RC and PC buildings with moment frame and wall frame structures: E-Defense test, part 3,
Summaries of technical papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan. C-2, Structures IV, 585-
586 [in Japanese]
[5] National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transpor and
Tourism, Building Research Institute Incorporated Administrative Institution (2014) Report on Field
Surveys and Subsequent Investigations of Building Damage Following the 2011 off the Pacific coast of
Tohoku Earthquake [in Japanese]
[6] Japan Meteorological Agencyhttp://www.data.jma.go.jp/svd/eqev/data/kyoshin/ jishin/hyogo_nanbu/index
.html
[7] TIS IT Holdings Group: Structural Design System BRAIN, http://www3.brain-tis.jp/
[8]Ryuta Enokida, Takuya Nagae, Masahiro Ikenaga, Michitaka Inami, Masayoshi Nakasima (2013)
Application of graphite lubricationfor column base in free standing steel structure, Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering, AIJ, Vol. 78 No. 685, 435-444 [in Japanese]
[9] Architectural Institute of JapanDesign Recommendations for Seismically Isolated Buildings [in Japanese]
[10] Architectural Institute of Japan (2010)Design Guideline for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete
Building Based on Inelastic Displacement Concept [in Japanese]
[11] Toshikazu Kabeyasawa, Hiroshi Fukuyama, Seitaro Tajiri, Toshimi Kabeyasawa, Shuji Kato, Go Takahashi
(2014): A Study on Effective Width of Slab attached on Reinforced Concrete Beam in in Assembled Frame
Specimens, Summaries of technical papers of annual meeting Architectural Institute of Japan. Structures IV,
501-502 [in Japanese]
[12] Fumio Kusuhara, Suhee Kim, Hitoshi Shiohara (2013)Seismic response of reinforced concrete moment
resisting frames of bean-column joint yielding, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, AIJ, Vol.
78 No. 686, 847-855 [in Japanese]

12