Seismic Response of A Three-Dimensional Asymmetric Multi-Storey Reinforced Concrete Structure

applied
sciences
Article
Seismic Response of a Three-Dimensional
Asymmetric Multi-Storey Reinforced
Concrete Structure
Hyun-Kyu Lim 1 , Jun Won Kang 1, *, Hongrak Pak 1 ID
, Ho-Seok Chi 2 , Young-Geun Lee 2 and
Janghwan Kim 3
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Hongik University, Seoul 04066, Korea; [email protected] (H.-K.L.);
[email protected] (H.P.)
2 Department of Structural Systems & Site Safety Evaluation, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, Daejeon 34142,
Korea; [email protected] (H.-S.C.); [email protected] (Y.-G.L.)
3 Daelim Industrial Corporation Ltd., Seoul 03152, Korea; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-2-320-1601

Received: 28 January 2018; Accepted: 19 March 2018; Published: 22 March 2018
Featured Application: Authors are encouraged to provide a concise description of the specific
application or a potential application of the work. This section is not mandatory.
Abstract: This study discusses the seismic behavior of a geometrically asymmetric three-storey
reinforced concrete (RC) building, considering torsional effect and material nonlinearity. The building
is a test structure that was used for seismic performance evaluation in the SMART 2013 (Seismic
design and best-estimate Methods Assessment for Reinforced concrete buildings subjected to Torsion
and nonlinear effects) international benchmark. To begin with, nonlinear stress–strain relationships
that were set up for concrete and reinforcing steel are validated by finite element local tests with a
representative volume element. A modal analysis shows that the first three calculated natural
frequencies are close to the ones that are obtained by modal experiments. The finite element
modeling is further validated by comparing the calculated displacement and acceleration due
to a low-intensity ground motion with the responses from the corresponding shaking table test.
Using the validated model, a blind nonlinear seismic analysis is performed for a series of Northridge
earthquakes in order to estimate the behavior of the asymmetric RC structure to high-intensity ground
motions. The calculated displacement and acceleration, as well as their response spectra at various
sampling points, agree well with the results of a three-dimensional benchmark shaking table test.
By investigating the seismic torsional behavior of the asymmetric RC structure, it is shown that the
seismic response of an asymmetric structure is larger than that of a hypothetical symmetric structure.
The result indicates that a larger seismic response should be considered in the seismic design of an
asymmetric structure compared to a symmetric structure with similar design conditions.
Keywords: asymmetric reinforced concrete structure; SMART 2013 international benchmark; finite
element model; nonlinear seismic analysis; seismic torsional behavior
1. Introduction
The evaluation of the inelastic response of reinforced concrete (RC) structures is essential for
estimating the strength and damage of the structure under extreme loads such as earthquake, impact,
and blast. In recent years, predicting the large deformation of RC structures has become more
practicable, due to the advance of state-of-the-art numerical algorithms and computational power [1–9].
In recent decades, the feasibility of numerical methods for predicting the nonlinear behavior of RC
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479; doi:10.3390/app8040479 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 2 of 23
structures have been assessed through many benchmark campaigns conducted on RC shear walls,
columns, and buildings. In 1997, the Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation of Japan organized a
series of shaking table tests on regular and U-shaped low-span RC shear walls [10,11]. The results
demonstrated the necessity of improving the nonlinear analysis methods for shear walls when dealing
with beyond design basis earthquake. From 1997 to 1998, the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et
aux énergies alternatives (CEA) of France performed SAFE (Structure Armées Faiblement Elancées)
tests for the experimental characterization of the dynamic behavior of low-span shear walls [12,13].
The SAFE tests were pseudodynamic tests where shear cracking, failure modes, nonlinear load versus
displacement diagrams, and wall ductility were confirmed under various earthquake loadings beyond
the design level. Other experimental campaigns were conducted by the CEA, such as Conception et
Analyse Sismique des Structures en Béton Armé (CASSBA) tests from 1990 to 1993 [14] and CAMUS
tests from 1996 to 2002 [15]. These tests were shaking table tests that were conducted on multi-storey
mock-ups with lightly reinforced concrete walls. These campaigns helped improve knowledge on the
seismic behavior of RC structural systems and provided reference data for model development and
validation [16,17]. In 2006, the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) launched a
blind prediction contest on the seismic response of a seven-storey full-scale RC building with cantilever
structural walls [18]. The contest program examined the seismic behavior of RC structural systems
with particular emphasis on the interaction among walls, slabs, and other gravity systems [19–22].
To improve on the previous development of benchmark campaigns for RC structures, a new
benchmark project named SMART 2013 (Seismic design and best-estimate Methods Assessment for
Reinforced concrete buildings subjected to Torsion and nonlinear effects) was carried out by the CEA
from 2011 to 2015. This project consisted of shaking table tests and an international benchmark analysis
on a reduced-scale model ( 14 scale) that was representative of a typical half part of a nuclear facility
building. The objective of the experimental campaign and benchmark analysis was to evaluate the
conventional design method of RC structures for seismic loadings and compare the structural dynamic
responses, as well as the floor response spectra, from various benchmark participants. The SMART 2013
campaign used a real high-intensity seismic load that was composed of a series of Northridge earthquakes
followed by aftershocks. The benchmark participants used the load data at eight actuator locations of a
three-dimensional shaking table to calculate the numerical response of the RC structure and compare it
with the experimental result. Before SMART 2013, there was a SMART 2008 benchmark organized by the
CEA with similar projects. However, SMART 2013 has the following new features compared to SMART
2008: (i) input signals are real ones and not synthetic ones; (ii) aftershock seismic loading is considered;
and (iii) additional load data at the actuator location are provided to benchmark participants.
This study aims to investigate the seismic behavior of the asymmetric SMART 2013 RC building
structure, considering torsional effect and material nonlinearity. In particular, the study includes
benchmark simulations comprising modal, linear, and nonlinear seismic analyses of the RC structure.
First, using mechanical parameters provided by the SMART 2013 international benchmark [23–26],
nonlinear constitutive models of concrete and reinforcing steel are constructed. The material models
are validated by local tests on a representative volume element (RVE). Then, a finite element (FE)
modeling of the entire SMART 2013 RC structure, which is based on its detailed drawings, is validated
by comparing the modal and linear time history analysis results with the experimental results.
The validated finite element model is used for a blind nonlinear seismic benchmark analysis of the
RC structure subjected to the high-intensity Northridge earthquake. Displacement and acceleration,
as well as their frequency spectra, are presented, exhibiting the torsional and flexural behaviors of
the structure. The computed seismic responses are compared with the results of a shaking table test,
which was conducted as part of the benchmark. Finally, the effect of the torsional behavior of the
asymmetric RC structure is examined by comparing the seismic response of the asymmetric structure
with that of a hypothetical symmetric structure with similar design conditions.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 3 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23

2. Configuration of the Asymmetric RC Building Structure
2. Configuration of the Asymmetric RC Building Structure
The SMART 2013 structure is an asymmetric three-storey RC building that is representative of a
2. Configuration of thestructure
Asymmetric an RC Building Structure RC building that is representative of a
typical halfThe SMART
part 2013
of a nuclear is building
facility at 14 scale,
asymmetric three-storey
as shown in Figure 1. Due to the asymmetric
typical
Thehalf part
SMART of a
2013nuclear facility
structure is anbuilding at
asymmetric ¼
shape, the structure may exhibit coupled flexural and torsionalscale, as shown
three-storey RC in Figure
building 1. Due
that
behaviors to the asymmetric
isagainst
representative of a loads.
external
shape, half
typical the structure
part of a may exhibit
nuclear coupled
facility flexural
building at ¼ andas
scale, torsional
shown behaviors
in Figure 1. against
Due to external
the loads.
asymmetric
Figure 2 shows the plan and elevation views of the structure. The principal dimensions of the
Figure the
shape, 2 shows the plan
structure and elevation views
may exhibit of the
and structure. The principal dimensions
external of the
structural components are presentedcoupled
in Tableflexural
structural components are presented in Table 1.
1. torsional behaviors against loads.
Figure 2 shows the plan and elevation views of the structure. The principal dimensions of the
structural components are presented in Table 1.
Figure 1. The asymmetric three-storey reinforced concrete building used for the SMART (Seismic
Figure 1. The asymmetric three-storey reinforced concrete building used for the SMART (Seismic
design and
Figure best-estimate
1. The asymmetric Methods Assessment
three-storey for Reinforced
reinforced concreteused
concrete building buildings subjected
for the SMARTto(Seismic
Torsion
designand
andnonlinear
best-estimate
effects) Methods
2013 Assessment
international for Reinforced
benchmark campaign. concrete buildings subjected to Torsion
design and best-estimate Methods Assessment for Reinforced concrete buildings subjected to Torsion
and nonlinear effects) 2013 international benchmark campaign.
and nonlinear effects) 2013 international benchmark campaign.
(a) Plan view (b) Elevation view

(a) Plan
Figure 2. Plan and elevation view
views of the SMART 2013 reinforced(b) Elevation
concrete (RC)view
structure (unit: mm).
Figure 2. Plan and elevation views of the SMART 2013 reinforced concrete (RC) structure (unit: mm).
2. Plan
FigureTable and elevation
1. Dimensions views
of the of thecomponents
structural SMART 2013 reinforced
of the concrete
SMART (Seismic (RC)and
design structure (unit: mm).
best-estimate
Methods
Table Assessment of
1. Dimensions forthe
Reinforced
structuralconcrete buildings
components of thesubjected to Torsion
SMART (Seismic and and
design nonlinear effects)
best-estimate
2013 reinforced
1. Dimensions
Table Methods concrete
of the
Assessment (RC) structure.
forstructural
Reinforcedcomponents of thesubjected
concrete buildings SMARTto(Seismic design
Torsion and and best-estimate
nonlinear effects)
Methods
2013Assessment
Structural Component Length (mm) Thickness (mm) Height (mm) effects) 2013
reinforced for Reinforced
concrete (RC) concrete
structure. buildings subjected to Torsion and nonlinear
reinforced concrete (RC)
Wall structure.
(V01 + V02) 3100 100 (mm) Height 3650
Structural Component Length (mm) Thickness (mm)
WallWall
(V01V03
+ V02) 2550
3100 100
100 3650
3650
Structural Component
Wall V03
V04 Length
1050(mm) Thickness
100 (mm) 3650 Height (mm)
Wall 2550 100 3650
Wall (V01 Beams
+ V02)
Wall V04 1450
3100
1050 150100
100 325 3650
3650
Wall Column
V03
Beams 200
2550
1450 200100
150 3900
325 3650
Wall Column
V04 1050
200 200100 3900 3650
The SMARTBeams 1450
2013 RC structure was designed according to 150
the French nuclear325regulations and
guidelines. The Column
The SMART design
2013 RCis based on awas
structure design200acceleration
designed according to 200
spectrum
the for nuclear3900
5% structural
French damping. and
regulations The
design spectrum
guidelines. is based
The design on a ground
is based motion
on a design with the spectrum
acceleration peak ground acceleration
for 5% structural(PGA) of 0.2
damping. g,
The
which corresponds
design spectrum is to an earthquake
based on a groundwith a Richter
motion withmagnitude
the peak of 5.5 and
ground an epicenter
acceleration distance
(PGA) of of 10
0.2 g,
The SMART 2013 RC structure was designed according to the French nuclear regulations and
km [23].
which The foundation
corresponds to an of the wall iswith
earthquake made of a continuous
a Richter RCoffooting
magnitude 5.5 andwith a width ofdistance
an epicenter 65 cm and
of 10a
guidelines. The design is based on a design acceleration spectrum for 5% structural damping.
km [23]. The foundation of the wall is made of a continuous RC footing with a width of 65 cm and a
The design spectrum is based on a ground motion with the peak ground acceleration (PGA) of
0.2 g, which corresponds to an earthquake with a Richter magnitude of 5.5 and an epicenter distance of
10 km [23]. The foundation of the wall is made of a continuous RC footing with a width of 65 cm and a
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 4 of 23

height of 25 cm, as shown in Figure 3a. There are 34 anchoring points through which threaded steel
height of 25 cm, as shown in Figure 3a. There are 34 anchoring points through which threaded steel
rods
height with a 36cm, mm diameter connect theThere
foundation to the shaking table. Figurewhich3b shows a cutaway
rods withofa 25 36 mmas shown in
diameter Figure the
connect 3a. are 34to
foundation anchoring
the shaking points through
table. Figure 3b shows threaded steel
a cutaway
view
rods of the
with a foundation.
36 mm diameterThe center
connect column
the of the
foundation structure
to the is
shaking anchored
table. to
Figurethe shaking
3b shows table
a with a
cutaway
view of the foundation. The center column of the structure is anchored to the shaking table with a
connecting
view of the steel plate that is 2center
foundation. mm thick.
connecting steel plate that The is 2 mm thick. column of the structure is anchored to the shaking table with a
connecting steel plate that is 2 mmRC
The mass of the SMART 2013 building is about 11.89 t. To reflect the weight of the equipment
thick.
The mass
and pipelines, of the SMART 2013 RC building foris about 11.89 t. To reflectisthe weight ofwhen the equipment
The massadditional
of the SMART mass2013 is considered
RC building iseach
about floor.
11.89Masst. Toscaling
reflect theconsidered
weight of the applying
equipment
and
the pipelines,
additional additional
mass to mass since
floors, is considered
the for each
building is a floor. Mass scaling
quarter-scale structure is considered
[23]. The when applying
additional mass
and pipelines, additional mass is considered for each floor. Mass scaling is considered when applying
the additional
isthe
11.45 t for mass
the to floors,
first floor, sincetthe
12.17 for building
the second is afloor,
quarter-scale
and 10.32 structure
t for the [23].
third The additional
floor. The totalmass
mass is
additional mass to floors, since the building is a quarter-scale structure [23]. The additional mass
11.45
of t for the firstwithfloor, 12.17 t for thefloor
second floor, and 10.32 tThe
for the thirdtablefloor.isThe total mass eight
of the
is the
11.45structure
t for the first the additional
floor, 12.17 t for mass
the second is floor,
about 45 t.10.32
and tshaking
for the third connected
floor. The totaltomass
structure
hydraulic with the
actuators,
of the structure
additional
without
floor
theofadditional
mass
which four is about
are mass
floor placed 45
is in
t. The shaking
a horizontal
about
table
45 t. Thedirection
is
shaking table
connected
and the to eight
remainingtofour
is connected
hydraulic
eightare
actuators,
laid in a out
hydraulic of which
vertical
actuators, four
direction.
out are
Theplaced
of which SMART in 2013
four are aplaced
horizontal
structure direction
is placed
in a horizontal andon the
direction remaining
the and
shaking foursuch
table
the remaining arefour
laid in
thatareitsa
vertical
center
laid in direction.
ofa mass
vertical The SMARTThe
corresponds
direction. 2013 structure
approximately
SMART is placed
to
2013 that of on
structure theisthe shaking
shaking
placed table
table.
on such 4that
the Figure
shaking its such
shows
table center of mass
the that
SMART its
corresponds
2013
center structure approximately
of masspositioned
corresponds to that of
onapproximately the shaking
the shaking table, to that table.
as of well
theas Figure 4
the eight
shaking shows
actuator
table. the SMART
Figurelocations.
4 shows the 2013 structure
TheSMART
ground
positioned
motion isonapplied
2013 structure the positioned
shaking
to thetable, as well
actuator
on the as the
locations
shaking eight
at as
table, actuator
the sideasand
well locations.
the bottom The of ground
eight actuator motion
the locations.
shaking is applied
table
The using ato
ground
the actuator
displacement
motion is locations
control
applied atmethod.
to the side and bottom
Figure
actuator 5 shows
locations of at
thethe shaking
sampling
side and table
pointsusing
bottom aofdisplacement
on each the floor wherecontrol
shaking method.
displacement
table using a
Figure
and 5 shows the
acceleration
displacement sampling
are
control recorded.
method. points
Figure on5each
shows floor
thewhere
sampling displacement
points on each andflooracceleration are recorded.
where displacement
and acceleration are recorded.
75 250 250 75
Thread stalk
±0.000 75 250 250 75
Steel plate
Thread stalk
±0.000
Steel plate
250 250
-0.250 Mortar
-0.250
20 20
-0.270 Mortar
Shaking table
-0.270 Shaking
50 50 450table 50 50 (Unit: mm)
50 50 650
450 50 50 (Unit: mm)
(a) Foundation of the walls (b) 650 of foundation
Cutaway view
(a) Foundation of the walls (b) Cutaway view of foundation
Figure 3. Wall foundation of the SMART 2013 RC structure [23]; (a) RC footing; (b) cutaway view.
Figure Wall
3. 3.
Figure foundation
Wall foundationofofthe
theSMART
SMART2013
2013 RC
RC structure [23];(a)
structure [23]; (a)RC
RCfooting;
footing;(b)
(b)cutaway
cutaway view.
view.
Actuator Y3
Actuator Y3
Actuator X4
Actuator X4
Actuator Z3 Actuator Z4
Point D
Point D
C.G Table Point C

C.G Table Point C
V 03
V 04
C.G. Specimen
V 03
V 04
C.G. Specimen
y
y
V 01 V 02
Point A x V 01 V 02 Point B
Point A x Point B
Actuator
Actuator X1X1
Actuator Y2
Actuator Y2
Figure
Figure 4. Plan view
viewofof the SMART 2013 structure positioned on
on theshaking
shaking table[23];
[23]; fourhydraulic
hydraulic
Figure 4. 4. Plan
Plan view ofthe
theSMART
SMART20132013structure
structure positioned
positioned on the
the shakingtable
table [23];four
four hydraulic
actuators
actuators (X1,
(X1, X4,
X4, Y2, Y3)
Y2,Y3) are
Y3)are placed
areplaced in
placedin a horizontal
inaahorizontal direction,
horizontal direction, and
direction, and the other four (Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4)are
are
actuators (X1, X4, Y2, andthe
theother
otherfour
four(Z1,
(Z1,Z2, Z3,
Z2, Z4)
Z3, Z4) are
laid in a vertical direction.
laidlaid
in in a vertical direction.
a vertical direction.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 5 of 23
Figure5.5.Response
Figure Response sampling
sampling points on
on each
each floor
floor(unit:
(unit:mm).
mm).
3.3.Finite
FiniteElement
ElementModeling
Modelingof
ofthe
the SMART
SMART 2013
2013 RC
RC Structure
Structure
3.1.Constitutive
3.1. ConstitutiveModels
Modelsfor
forConcrete
Concrete and
and Steel
Steel Reinforcement
Reinforcement
ToTocapture
capturethe
theinelastic
inelasticstress–strain
stress–strain behavior
behavior of
of the
the RC
RC members,
members,nonlinear
nonlinearconstitutive
constitutivemodels
models
ofofconcrete
concreteand
andrebar
rebarare
areneeded.
needed. Equations
Equations (1)
(1) and
and (2)
(2) represent
representaawidely
widelyused
useduniaxial
uniaxialcompressive
compressive
stress–strainrelationship
stress–strain relationshipfor
forconcrete
concrete[27]:
[27]:
𝐸𝑐 𝜖
𝜎= Ec e𝜖 2
σ = 1 +( (1)(1)
)2
1 + 𝜖ee0 0
2𝑓𝑐′
𝜖0 = 2 f 0 (2)
e0 = 𝐸𝑐c (2)
Ec
where 𝜎 and 𝜖 denote stress and strain, respectively, 𝐸𝑐 denotes the initial Young’s modulus of
where σ and e denote stress and strain, respectively, E denotes the initial Young’s modulus of
concrete, and 𝑓0 𝑐′ is the ultimate compressive strength ofc concrete. 𝜖0 represents the strain at the
concrete, and f c is the ultimate compressive strength of concrete. e represents the strain at the
compressive strength 𝑓0 𝑐′ . Table 2 lists the measured material properties0of concrete and rebar. Based
compressive strength
on Equation (1), a simplified
f c . Table 2 lists the measured material properties of concrete and rebar. Based
multilinear stress–strain curve of concrete is constructed using the
onmaterial
Equation (1), a simplified
properties of Table 2. multilinear stress–strainancurve
For steel reinforcement, of concreteplastic
elastic–perfectly is constructed
stress–strain using
curve the
material properties of Table 2. For steel reinforcement, an elastic–perfectly
is also constructed by referring to the property values in Table 2. Figure 6 shows the simplified strain– plastic stress–strain curve
isstress
also constructed
curves for each by referring to the property
of the constitutive values
models. Thesein Table
curves 2. are
Figure 6 shows the
incorporated intosimplified
ANSYS
strain–stress
Mechanical APDL curves[28],for each of the
a finite constitutive
element analysis models.
package,Theseas the curves are incorporated
multilinear into ANSYS
constitutive relationship
Mechanical
of concrete APDLwith[28], a finite hardening
isotropic element analysis and thepackage, as the multilinear
elastoplastic constitutiveconstitutive
relationshiprelationship
of steelof
concrete with isotropic hardening and the elastoplastic constitutive
reinforcement, respectively. The concrete model consists of six linear segments with an initialrelationship of steel reinforcement,
respectively.
Young’s modulus The concrete
of 32,000 model
MPa consists of six linear
and successively segments
decreasing with an
moduli. The initial Young’sand
compressive modulus
tensileof
32,000 MPa and successively decreasing moduli. The compressive and
strengths of concrete are 30 MPa and 2.4 MPa, respectively. The stress–strain curve starts from zero tensile strengths of concrete
are 30 MPa
stress and and 2.4ItMPa,
strain. respectively.
is assumed The stress–strain
that concrete behaves incurve startselastic
a linearly from zero
mannerstressupand strain.
to Point 1, It
atis
assumed
which the that
stress is 0.3𝑓
concrete 𝑐
′
behaves
. Points in
2, a3,linearly
and 4 areelastic manner
obtained from up to Point
Equation 1,
(1), at which
where 𝜖 0 the
is stress
calculatedis 0.3
by f c0 .
′ is at f c0
Points 2, 3, (2).
Equation andPoint is at 𝑓𝑐 from
4 are 5obtained and 𝜖Equation (1), where curve
0 . The stress–strain e0 is calculated
is extended byto Equation
Point 6, (2).
wherePoint
the5strain
is 0.003,
and with
e0 . The a slight increase
stress–strain curve of stress to help
is extended the convergence
to Point 6, where theofstrain solutions in the
is 0.003, nonlinear
with a slightseismic
increase
ofanalysis
stress towith
helpANSYS. The yield strength
the convergence of solutions of the
inrebar is 500 MPa
the nonlinear at the strain
seismic analysisof 0.00238 in bothThe
with ANSYS. tension
yield
and compression
strength of the rebar . is 500 MPa at the strain of 0.00238 in both tension and compression.
Table2.2.Material
Table Materialproperties
properties of
of concrete
concrete and rebar obtained
obtained by
by experiments
experiments[24].
[24].
Young’s Poisson’s Compressive Strength Tensile Strength Mass Density
Structural Component Young’s Compressive Tensile Strength Mass Density −3
Structural Component Modulus (MPa) Ratio
Poisson’s Ratio (MPa) (MPa) (kg·m )
Modulus (MPa) Strength (MPa) (MPa) (kg·m−3 )
Foundation concrete 25,400 0.17 43.3 3.45 2300
Foundation
Slab concrete concrete
on the first floor 25,400
28,200 0.18 0.17 43.3
41.1 3.453.25 2300 2300
Slab concrete on the first floor 28,200 0.18 41.1 3.25 2300
Slab concrete on the second floor 24,700 0.17 36.8 3.35 2300
Slab concrete on the second floor 24,700 0.17 36.8 3.35 2300
Slab concrete on the third floor
Slab concrete on the third floor 24,400
24,400 0.18 0.18 37.8
37.8 3.40 3.40 2300 2300
Wall concrete
Wall concrete 28,700
28,700 0.19 0.19 41.7
41.7 3.893.89 2300 2300
Steel reinforcement
Steel reinforcement 267,333
267,333 0.30 0.30 528
528 528 528 7800 7800
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 6 of 23
(a) Concrete (b) Rebar
Figure 6. Strain–stress curves for concrete and steel reinforcement.

Figure 6. Strain–stress curves for concrete and steel reinforcement.
3.2. Failure Criter Ion for Concrete
3.2. Failure Criter Ion for Concrete
For the simulation of the behavior of concrete materials in multiaxial stress states, the Willam–
Warnke failure criterion
For the simulation [29] was of
of the behavior implemented in ANSYS
concrete materials with a SOLID65
in multiaxial element
stress states, (ANSYS
the Willam–Warnke
Mechanical APDL Release 14.5, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA,
failure criterion [29] was implemented in ANSYS with a SOLID65 element (ANSYS Mechanical 2012), which is a three-APDL
dimensional hexahedral element that can be used to model concrete. Both cracking and crushing
Release 14.5, ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2012), which is a three-dimensional hexahedral element
failure modes can be accounted for by using the failure criterion. In the concrete element, cracking
that can be used to model concrete. Both cracking and crushing failure modes can be accounted for by
occurs when the principal tensile stress lies outside the failure surface. On the other hand, crushing
using the failure criterion. In the concrete element, cracking occurs when the principal tensile stress
occurs when all of the principal stresses are compressive and lie outside the failure surface. The
lies outside the failure
Willam–Warnke surface.
failure Onprescribes
criterion the otherthe hand, crushing
portion occurscurve
of the failure when all of the plane
in deviatoric principal stresses
as part
are compressive
of an elliptic curve. The cylindrical von Mises model and the conical Drucker–Prager model are all the
and lie outside the failure surface. The Willam–Warnke failure criterion prescribes
portion of the
special failure
cases of thecurve in deviatoric
Willam–Warnke plane
failure as partThe
criterion. of an elliptic curve.Willam–Warnke
three-parameter The cylindricalfailure
von Mises
modelsurface can conical
and the be expressed as:
Drucker–Prager model are all special cases of the Willam–Warnke failure criterion.
1 𝜎𝑚 can1be𝜏expressed
The three-parameter Willam–Warnke failure surface 𝑚 as:
𝑓(𝜎𝑚 , 𝜏𝑚 , 𝜃) = + −1=0 (3)
𝜌 𝑓𝑐′ 𝑟(𝜃) 𝑓𝑐′
1 σm 1 τm
θ) =
f (σm , τm , strength
where 𝑓𝑐′ is the uniaxial compressive + −1 = 0 (3)
ρ fof r (θ ) f c0while 𝜎𝑚 and 𝜏𝑚 denote the mean
0 concrete,
c
normal and mean shear stresses, respectively. The variable 𝜃 denotes the angle of similarity. They
canf be
where 0 isrepresented as:compressive strength of concrete, while σ and τ denote the mean normal
the uniaxial
c m m
and mean shear stresses, respectively. The variable θ denotes the angle of similarity. They can be
1 2 1 3√3𝐽3
represented as: 𝜎𝑚 = 𝐼1 , 𝜏𝑚 = √ √𝐽2 , 𝜃 = cos −1 ( ) (4)
3 5 3  √ 32 
2𝐽
r
1 2 1 3 3J2 3
J2 , θ = cos−1 
p
σm = I1 , τm = 3
 (4)
3 5 3
where 𝐼1 is the first invariant of the stress tensor, while 𝐽2 and 𝐽3 are the2second and third invariants
2J2
of the deviatoric part of the stress tensor, respectively. In Equation (3), 𝑟(𝜃) is the radial coordinate
where I1 isfailure
of the the first invariant
surface on theof the stress
deviatoric tensor,
plane, which canJbe
while 2 and J3 are as
expressed thethe
second and third invariants of
following:
the deviatoric part of the stress tensor, respectively. In Equation (3), r (θ ) is the radial 1 coordinate of the
failure surface on 𝑟(𝜃) 2𝑟𝑐 (𝑟𝑐2 − 𝑟plane,
the deviatoric
2
𝑡 ) cos 𝜃 + 𝑟𝑐 (2𝑟can
which 𝑡−𝑟𝑐 )[4(𝑟
be
2
expressed
2
𝑐 − 𝑟𝑡 ) cos
as
2
5𝑟𝑡2 − 4𝑟𝑡 𝑟𝑐 ]2
𝜃 +following:
the (5)
=
4(𝑟𝑐2 − 𝑟𝑡2 ) cos 2 𝜃 + (𝑟𝑐 − 2𝑟𝑡 )2
1
The parameters2r𝜌c, r𝑟c2𝑐 ,− rt 𝑟cos
2 rc2 are
− rt2thecos2θ+ 5rt2 − 4rt rofc the

and + rc (2rt −
𝑡 inθEquations (3)rcand
) 4 (5) three parameters 2 Willam–
r ( θ ) =
Warnke failure surface model. The parameters 𝑟𝑐 , and2 𝑟𝑡 are the magnitude
2 of the position vectors (5)
2

2
4 rc − rt cos θ + (rc − 2rt )
at locations 𝜃 = 0 and π/3 on the deviatoric plane, respectively, as shown in Figure 7. The three
model parametersρ,can
The parameters r ,be
andexpressed as:
r in Equations (3) and (5) are the three parameters of the Willam–Warnke
c t
failure surface model. The parameters rc , and rt are ̅′the
𝑓𝑏𝑐 𝑓̅𝑡 magnitude of the position vectors at locations
𝜌= ′ (6)
𝑓
θ = 0 and π/3 on the deviatoric plane, respectively, ̅
𝑏𝑐 as 𝑓− ̅
shown
𝑡 in Figure 7. The three model parameters
can be expressed as:
6 0𝑓𝑏𝑐̅′ 𝑓̅𝑡
𝑟𝑐 = √ f f ̅′ ̅ (7)
̅ 𝑓̅𝑡 + t𝑓𝑏𝑐
ρ5 =3𝑓𝑏𝑐′ bc − 𝑓𝑡 (6)
0
f bc − f t
r 0
6 f bc f t
rc = (7)
5 3 f 0 ft + f 0 − ft
bc bc
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 7 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW

r 0 7 of 23
6 f bc f t
rt = (8)
5 2 f 0 + ft
6 𝑓bc ̅′ ̅
𝑏𝑐 𝑓𝑡
0 𝑟𝑡 = √ (8)
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FORf PEER REVIEW ̅′ ̅
5 2𝑓ratios,
𝑏𝑐 + 𝑓𝑡 which are represented as:
7 of 23
In Equations (6)–(8), t and f bc are the strength
In Equations (6)–(8), 𝑓̅𝑡 and 𝑓𝑏𝑐

̅′ are the strength ratios,
6 𝑓 ̅′ 𝑓̅𝑡 0 which are represented as:
f t 0 𝑏𝑐 f
f t =𝑟𝑡𝑓=0 ,√f5bc2𝑓=𝑏𝑐̅′ + 𝑓bc
(8)
𝑡
𝑓̅𝑏𝑐
′
0𝑡
(9)
𝑓̅ = f c,
𝑡 ′
𝑓̅′ = f c
𝑏𝑐 ′
(9)
In Equations (6)–(8), 𝑓̅𝑡 and 𝑓𝑏𝑐 ̅′ are the 𝑓𝑐 strength ratios,
𝑓𝑐 which are represented as:
wherewhere 0
f t and𝑓𝑡 f bc are𝑓the uniaxial tensile strength and 𝑓𝑡 the equal biaxial compressive strength of concrete,
′
and 𝑏𝑐 are the uniaxial tensile ̅strength and 𝑓 ′ equal
the biaxial compressive strength of
𝑓𝑡 = ′ , ̅′ = 𝑏𝑐
𝑓𝑏𝑐 (9)
respectively. Figure 8 shows the trace of the
concrete, respectively. Figure 8 shows the trace 𝑓of three-parameter 𝑓𝑐 ′ Willam–Warnke
𝑐 the three-parameter
yield surface in
Willam–Warnke yield surface the σ1 -σ2
0
principal 𝜎
in thecoordinate
1 -𝜎2 principal
where 𝑓𝑡 andplane
𝑓𝑏𝑐 for ft =
′ coordinate
are the 0.1 and
plane
uniaxial tensile𝑓̅𝑡 strength
forf bc == 0.1
1.16.and ̅′
and 𝑓the
𝑏𝑐 = 1.16.biaxial compressive strength of
equal
concrete, respectively. Figure 8 shows the trace of the three-parameter Willam–Warnke yield surface
in the 𝜎1 -𝜎2 principal coordinate plane for 𝑓̅𝑡 = 0.1 and 𝑓𝑏𝑐 ̅′ = 1.16.
Figure 7. Deviatoric section of the Willam–Warnke failure surface.

Figure 7.Figure 7. Deviatoric
Deviatoric section
section of of
thetheWillam–Warnke
Willam–Warnke failure surface.
failure surface.
Figure 8. Trace of the three-parameter Willam–Warnke yield surface in the 𝜎1 -𝜎2 plane for 𝑓𝑡̅ = 0.1
Figure 8. Trace
and of̅′ the
𝑓𝑏𝑐 three-parameter Willam–Warnke yield surface in the σ1 -σ2 plane for f t = 0.1 and
= 1.16.
0
1.16. 8. Trace of the three-parameter Willam–Warnke yield surface in the 𝜎1 -𝜎2 plane for 𝑓𝑡̅ = 0.1
f bc =Figure
and ̅′Finite
3.3.𝑓𝑏𝑐 = 1.16.
Element Modeling of Concrete and Steel Reinforcement
3.3. Finite Element

For Modeling of Concrete
the finite element andofSteel
modeling Reinforcement
concrete, the SOLID65 three-dimensional element of ANSYS
3.3. Finite
wasElement Modeling
used, which of Concrete
is associated andplasticity
with the Steel Reinforcement
algorithm described in Section 3.2. The solid element
For thehad finite element modeling of concrete, the SOLID65 three-dimensional element of ANSYS
For theeight nodes,
finite with
element three translational
modeling degrees
of concrete, of SOLID65
the freedom atthree-dimensional
each node. Several material
′
element property
of ANSYS
was used, data are
which isrequired
associated for SOLID65:
with the 𝐸, uniaxialdescribed 𝑓𝑐 ,3.2.
theplasticity
elastic modulus
plasticity algorithm
compressivein strength
Section TheThe
uniaxial tensile
was used, which is associated with algorithm described in Section 3.2. solidsolid element
element
had eight strengthwith
nodes, 𝑓𝑡 , Poisson’s
three ratio 𝜈, shear transfer
translational degrees coefficient
of 𝛽, andatthe
freedom uniaxial
each node.constitutive
Several relationship
material property
had eight nodes, with three translational degrees of freedom at each node. Several material property
as described in Section 3.1. The shear transfer coefficient 𝛽 ranged from 0 to 1, with 0 representing
′ f 0 , uniaxial tensile
data are
datarequired
arethe required for SOLID65:
completefor SOLID65:
loss
elastic
elasticmodulus
of shear transfer modulus
along 𝐸, uniaxial
E,
the crack
uniaxial compressive
face, andcompressive
1 representing no loss of𝑓𝑐shear
strength
strength , uniaxial tensile
c transfer.
strength
strength 𝑓𝑡 , Poisson’s
f t , Poisson’s ratio
ratio 𝜈, shear
ν, shear transfer coefficient 𝛽,
transfercoefficient andthe
β, and theuniaxial
uniaxial constitutive
constitutive relationship
relationship
as described
as described in Section
in Section 3.1.3.1. Theshear
The sheartransfer coefficient𝛽βranged
transfer coefficient rangedfromfrom 0 to 1, with
0 to 1, with 0 representing
0 representing
the complete loss of shear transfer along the crack face, and 1 representing
the complete loss of shear transfer along the crack face, and 1 representing no loss of shear no loss of shear transfer.
transfer.
The shear transfer coefficient used in this study was 0.5 for an open crack and 0.9 for a closed crack.
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2018,
2018, 8,
8, x479
FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of
of 23
23
The shear transfer coefficient used in this study was 0.5 for an open crack and 0.9 for a closed crack.
finite element
For the finite element modeling
modeling of
of steel
steel reinforcement,
reinforcement, aa three-dimensional
three-dimensional beam
beam element,
element,BEAM188,
BEAM188,
of ANSYS was used, for which the elastic–perfectly plastic constitutive relationship described described in
Section 3.1 was imposed. The
Section The reinforcing
reinforcing steel
steel element
element was
was set
set to
to share
share the
the node
node with
with a concrete
element in order to model a perfect bond between concrete and reinforcing steel.
reinforcing steel.
3.4. Local
3.4. Local Test
Test
To validate
To validate the the feasibility
feasibility of of the
the constitutive models, aa local
constitutive models, local finite
finite element test was
element test was performed
performed
on the RVEs. The local test consisted of uniaxial and biaxial cyclic
on the RVEs. The local test consisted of uniaxial and biaxial cyclic loading tests on a concrete loading tests on a concrete RVE,RVE,
and aa shear
and shear test
test onon an an RC RC RVE.
RVE. TheThe concrete
concrete RVE RVE was
was aa cube
cube with
with aa side
side length
length of of 11 m,
m, and
and thethe RC
RC
RVE was a Appl. Sci. 2018,
cuboid with 8, x side
FOR PEER REVIEW
lengths of 200 mm and a width of 10 mm, as shown in Figure 8 of
9. 23The local
RVE was a cuboid with side lengths of 200 mm and a width of 10 mm, as shown in Figure 9. The local
test configuration
test configuration
The shear is transfer
is described
described in Table
in Table
coefficient used3. Figures
3.inFigures 10was
this study10 and
and 11
0.511 show
forshow the
the
an open boundary
boundary
crack condition
condition
and 0.9 for of the
of
a closed crack. the RVEs
RVEs
and the
and the time
timeFor
history
the finite
history ofelement
of cyclicmodeling
cyclic loads, respectively,
loads, respectively, for
for local
of steel reinforcement,local tests
tests rc.1
rc.1 and
and rc.2.
a three-dimensional beam
rc.2. element, BEAM188,
of ANSYS was used, for which the elastic–perfectly plastic constitutive relationship described in
Section 3.1 was imposed. The reinforcing steel element was set to share the node with a concrete
element in order to model a perfect bond between concrete and reinforcing steel.
3.4. Local Test

To validate the feasibility of the constitutive models, a local finite element test was performed
on the RVEs. The local test consisted of uniaxial and biaxial cyclic loading tests on a concrete RVE,
and a shear test on an RC RVE. The concrete RVE was a cube with a side length of 1 m, and the RC
RVE was a cuboid with side lengths of 200 mm and a width of 10 mm, as shown in Figure 9. The local
test configuration is described in Table 3. Figures 10 and 11 show the boundary condition of the RVEs
and the time history
(a) of cyclic loads, respectively, for local tests(b)
rc.1 and rc.2.
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Representative
Representative volume
volume elements
elements for
for local
local finite
finite element
element test;
test; (a)
(a) Concrete
Concrete representative
representative
volume element (RVE); (b) RC RVE.
volume element (RVE); (b) RC RVE.
Table 3. Configuration of the local test. RVE: representative volume element.

Table 3. Configuration of the local test. RVE: representative volume element.
Test No. Material Aim Loading Conditions
Test No. Material Aim Biaxial tension–compression
Loading Conditions loading from
c.1 Concrete Construct
(a) failure surface (b)MPa to 2.4 MPa
–35
Biaxial tension–compression
c.1 Figure 9. Concrete
Reinforced Representative volumeConstruct failure
elements for local surface Uniaxial
finite element cyclic
test; tension–compression
(a) from
Concrete loading with
rc.1 Identify axial cyclic response of RC RVE loading –35representative
MPa to 2.4 MPa
concrete
volume element (RVE); (b) RC RVE. displacement ranging from −4 mm to 1.5 mm
Reinforced Uniaxial
Cyclic pure shear cyclic
loading with the force ranging
rc.2 Identify shear cyclic response of RC RVE
concrete Table 3. ConfigurationIdentify axial
of the local cyclicrepresentative
test. RVE: fromtension–compression
−6 KN volume
to 6 KN element. loading with
rc.1 Reinforced concrete
Test No. Material
response
Aim
of RC RVE displacement ranging from −4
Loading Conditions
Biaxialmm to 1.5 mm loading from
tension–compression
c.1 Concrete Construct failure surface
–35 MPa to 2.4 MPa
Reinforced concrete
Identify shear cyclic Cyclic pure shear loading with the
Uniaxial cyclic tension–compression loading with
rc.2 rc.1 Reinforced Identify axial cyclic responseof
of RC
RC RVE
concrete response RVE force ranging
displacement from
ranging from −4 mm−to6 KN to 6 KN
1.5 mm
Reinforced Cyclic pure shear loading with the force ranging
rc.2 Identify shear cyclic response of RC RVE
concrete from −6 KN to 6 KN
(a) Boundary condition (b) Cyclic excitation

Figure 10. Local test rc.1: uniaxial cyclic displacement loading.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 9 of 23


Figure 11. Local test rc.2: cyclic pure shear loading.
(a) Boundary
Figure 11. condition
Local test rc.2: cyclic pure(b) Cyclic
shear excitation
loading.
Figure 12 shows the yield Figure and11. failure
Local test surfaces constructed
rc.2: cyclic pure shear from local test c.1 on the concrete
loading.
RVE. The failure surface Figure 11. Local testwith
was constructed rc.2: the
cyclic pure shear
biaxial normal loading.
stresses where compressive
Figure 12 shows
crushing
the cracking
yield and failureInsurfaces constructed from local test c.1 on theboth concrete RVE.
Figureor12 tensile
shows occurred.
the yield and failure the surfaces
case of equal biaxial loading,
constructed from localprincipal stresses
test c.1 on theinconcrete
The failure 𝑥1surface
RVE. Figure
and was
The𝑥2 failure
constructed
12 shows
directions the yield
reached
surface was
with
and
about the
1.16𝑓
constructed
biaxial
failure′
𝑐 atwith
normal
surfaces
compressive stresses
theconstructed
failure,
biaxial
where
from
which
normal
compressive
local
shows test
stresses c.1
thewhere crushingthe or tensile
on compressive
the
feasibility concrete
of
RVE.
crackingcrushing Theormaterial
occurred.
nonlinear failure
In thesurface
tensile case of
modeling
cracking was
in constructed
equal
Sections
occurred. biaxial
In3.1
the andwith
case3.2.ofthe
loading, biaxial
principal
Figure
equal 13 normal
shows
biaxial stresses
stresses
the stress–strain
loading, where
in both
principal x1compressive
response and
stresses inxboth
from 2 directions
𝑥crushing
local
reached about
1 and 𝑥 ordirections
tests
1.16
2 cf tensile
0 at and
rc.1 cracking
rc.2
compressive on occurred.
reached the RC 1.16𝑓
failure,
about RVE.In the
which
𝑐′
′The
atcase of equal
stress–strain
shows
compressivethe biaxial
response
feasibility
failure, loading,
from
of
which principal
the
the local
nonlinear
shows the stresses
test rc.1
feasibility inofboth
was
material themodeling
𝑥1nonlinear
and 𝑥2material
nonlinear directions
because reached
of the
modeling large about
in Sections1.16𝑓
deformation
3.1 atthe
𝑐ofand compressive
RVE, whereas
3.2. Figure failure,
13 which
the shear
shows the shows the
response from
stress–strain feasibility of
the test rc.2
response the
from
in Sectionsremained
3.1 andlinear.
3.2. Figure 13 shows thethat
The local testinshowed
stress–strain response from local tests rc.1 and rc.2 on the RC
nonlinear
tests material
rc.1 andmodeling
rc.2 on theSections 3.1the and material models
3.2. Figure of concrete
13response
shows the and rebar worked
stress–strain
the localresponse
well in
test rc.1 from
RVE. Thelocal
stress–strain
the finite
local element
testsbecause
rc.1 andresponse
analysis. from RC RVE.
the local The
test stress–strain
rc.1 was nonlinear from
because of the large was
deformation of
nonlinear of rc.2 on the
the large RC RVE. The
deformation of thestress–strain
RVE, whereas response
the shearfrom the local
response fromtesttherc.1
test was
rc.2
the RVE,remained
whereas the
nonlinear linear.
because shear response
of local
The the large from
deformation
test showed
the
that the
test
of the rc.2 remained
RVE, whereas
material models of thelinear. The
shear response
concrete
local
and rebarfrom
test showed
the test
worked wellrc.2
in
that the
remained
material the
models linear.
of The
concrete
finite element local
andtest
analysis. showed
rebar worked that the well material
in themodels of concrete
finite element and rebar worked well in
analysis.
the finite element analysis.
Figure 12. Yield and failure surfaces constructed from local test c.1.
Figure
Figure 12. Yield
12. Yield andand failuresurfaces
failure surfaces constructed
constructed from locallocal
from test c.1.
test c.1.
Figure 12. Yield and failure surfaces constructed from local test c.1.
(a) rc.1 (b) rc.2

Figure 13. Stress–strain responses from local tests rc.1 and rc.2.
3.5. Finite Element Models of Structural Components

(a) rc.1 (b) rc.2
The SMART 2013 RC (a) rc.1
building consists of eight structural components:(b) rc.2
foundation, wall, slab,
beam, column, rebar,Figure
steel plate,
13. Stress–strain responses from local tests rc.1 and rc.2. are modeled with
and shaking table. The rebar and steel plate
The SMART
3.5. Finite Element Models2013 RC buildingComponents
of Structural consists of eight structural components: foundation, wall, slab,
beam,The SMART
column, 2013
rebar, RC building
steel consists
plate, and shakingof eight
table.structural
The rebarcomponents: foundation,
and steel plate wall, with
are modeled slab,
beam, column, rebar, steel plate, and shaking table. The rebar and steel plate are modeled with
The SMART 2013 RC building consists of eight structural components: foundation, wall, slab,
beam, column, rebar, steel plate, and shaking table. The rebar and steel plate are modeled with
BEAM188 and SOLID185 elements, respectively, and the remaining six components are modeled with
SOLID65 concrete element. SOLID185 is an eight-node solid element in ANSYS that is capable of
modeling large deformation and stress stiffening. The rebar element was set to share the node with a
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 10 of 23
concrete element in order to model the perfect bond between the two elements. Table 4 summarizes
BEAM188 and SOLID185 elements, respectively, and the remaining six components are modeled
the total number of elements,
with SOLID65 the total
concrete element. number
SOLID185 ofeight-node
is an nodes, andsolidthe number
element of solid
in ANSYS thatand beam elements.
is capable
Figure 14a shows the
of modeling largefull structural
deformation model
and stress of theThe
stiffening. mock-up structure,
rebar element including
was set to the with
share the node shaking table.
Figure 14ba concrete
shows element
the rebarin order to model
elements inthe
theperfect bondslabs,
concrete between the two
walls, elements.
beams, and Table
the4 column.
summarizesFigure 14c–f
the total number of elements, the total number of nodes, and the number of solid and beam elements.
exhibits modeling details for the slab connected to the column, the slab supported by floor beams, and
Figure 14a shows the full structural model of the mock-up structure, including the shaking table.
the reinforcement in walls
Figure 14b shows and slabs,
the rebar elementsrespectively.
in the concrete slabs, walls, beams, and the column. Figure 14c–
f exhibits modeling details for the slab connected to the column, the slab supported by floor beams,
Table 4. Geometrical
and the reinforcement characteristics
in walls and slabs, respectively.of the finite element (FE) model.
Table 4. Geometrical characteristics of the finite element (FE) model.

Geometrical Characteristics of the FE Model Number
Geometrical Characteristics of the FE Model Number
Total number of elements 13,391
Total number of elements 13,391
Total number of nodes 14,479
Total number of nodes 14,479
Number of solid elements 11,007
Number of solid elements 11,007
Number of beam elements 2384
Number of beam elements 2384
(a) Full structural model (b) Modeling of rebar
(c) Slab connected to the column (d) Slab supported by beams
(e) Reinforcement in the wall (f) Reinforcement in the wall and slab
Figure 14. Finite element modeling of the SMART 2013 RC structure.

Figure 14. Finite element modeling of the SMART 2013 RC structure.
4. Validation of the Finite Element Model
4.1. Modal Analysis

In order to validate the finite element modeling of the SMART 2013 RC structure, natural
frequencies calculated by modal analysis were compared with those obtained by experiment. In the
modal analysis, three different model configurations were investigated. In Case 1, the mock-up
structure was fixed at the foundation level with no additional mass. In Case 2, the structure was fixed
at the foundation level, and loaded with the additional mass on each floor. In Case 3, the structure was
4.1. Modal Analysis
4.1. Modal Analysis
Appl. Sci. 2018,In order to validate the finite element modeling of the SMART 2013 RC structure, natural 11 of 23
8, 479
In ordercalculated
frequencies to validate the finite
by modal element
analysis were modeling
compared ofwith
the SMART
those obtained 2013 RC structure, natural
by experiment. In the
frequencies calculated by modal analysis were compared with
modal analysis, three different model configurations were investigated. In Case 1, the mock-upthose obtained by experiment. In the
connected modal
structure analysis,
to the was
shaking three
fixed different
attable
the andmodel
foundation loaded configurations
level with no
with the were investigated.
additional
additional mass. In Case
mass onIn Case
2,each
the 1, thesimilar
structure
floor, mock-up
was fixed
to Case 2.
structure
at the was fixedlevel,
foundation at theand foundation
loaded level the
with with no additional
additional mass mass.
on In Case
each 2, In
floor. theCase
structure
3, the was fixed
structure
The actuator locations were set as fixed boundaries. Table 5 presents the first three natural frequencies
at
wastheconnected
foundation level,
to the and loaded
shaking table andwith the additional
loaded mass on each
with the additional massfloor. In Case
on each floor,3,similar
the structure
to Case
that were was calculated
connected for
to theeach
shaking model case,
tablesetand alongwith withthe the experimentally obtained natural frequencies
2. The actuator locations were asloaded
fixed boundaries. additional
Table mass on each
5 presents floor,
the firstsimilar
three to Case
natural
for Case2.frequencies
3The
[30–33]. that were calculated for each model case, along with the experimentally obtained natural7.77 Hz,
actuator The computed
locations were first
set three
as fixed natural frequencies
boundaries. Table 5 for the
presents Casethe 3 were
first three 6.26 Hz,
natural
and 13.15 Hz,
frequencies respectively,
that
frequencies for Case and they
were3calculated
[30–33]. forare
The eachclose
computed modelto the
case,
first experiment
along
three with the
natural results.for
experimentally
frequencies The themodal
obtained analysis
Case 3 were 6.26 used a
natural
reducedHz,frequencies
integration for
7.77 Hz, and Case
method 3 [30–33].
13.15 Hz, in orderThe computed
to reduce
respectively, first three
the stiffness
and they natural
are close of frequencies
to the for
RC structure,
the experiment the Case 3
andThe
results. were
thus 6.26
relieve the
modal
Hz, 7.77 used
analysis Hz, and 13.15 Hz,
a reduced respectively,
integration method andinthey
orderare to close
reduce tothethestiffness
experimentof the results. The modal
RC structure, and
stiffer simulation that results when solid elements are used. The reduced integration method was
analysis
thus relieve usedthe a reduced integration
stiffer simulation method
that resultsinwhen ordersolid
to reduce
elementsthe arestiffness
used. of
The thereduced
RC structure, and
integration
also used thus
inrelieve
the subsequent seismic that simulation. Figures 15–17 show the The
mode shape for each case of
method wasthealso stiffer
usedsimulation
in the subsequent results when
seismic solid elements
simulation. Figures are15–17
used.show reduced
the mode integration
shape for
model configurations.
method was The first and second modes were bending modes to x- and y-axes, respectively,
each case of also
model used in the subsequent
configurations. The seismic
first andsimulation.
second modes Figures were 15–17 show modes
bending the mode to shape
𝑥- andfor 𝑦-
while the each third
case mode
of model is a torsional
configurations. mode The to the
first and z-axis.
second As seen
modes in
were
axes, respectively, while the third mode is a torsional mode to the 𝑧-axis. As seen in the figures, the the figures,
bending modesthe 𝑥-
structure
to and 𝑦-
exhibited
torsional axes, respectively,
behavior
structure in allwhile
exhibited threethe
torsional third
modes
behaviormode inisalla three
because torsional
of itsmodes mode to theof𝑧-axis.
asymmetrical
because shape. As seen in the
its asymmetrical figures, the
shape.
structure exhibited torsional behavior in all three modes because of its asymmetrical shape.
Table Table 5. Natural
5. Natural frequencies
frequencies ofofthe
theSMART
SMART 2013
2013RC
RCstructure for for
structure three model
three cases. cases.
model
Table 5. Natural frequencies of the SMART 2013 RC structure for three model cases.
Model First Modal Second Modal Third Modal
Model
Model
Configurations First
First
Frequency Modal
Modal (Hz) SecondModal
Second
Frequency Modal
(Hz) Third Modal
Third Modal
Frequency (Hz)
Configurations
Configurations Frequency
Frequency (Hz) Frequency(Hz)
(Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Case 1 21.37 (Hz) Frequency
36.23 Frequency
65.82 (Hz)
Analysis Case
Case 12 1
Case 21.37
21.37
8.93 36.23
36.23
15.39 65.82
30.71
Analysis
Analysis Case
Case 23 2 8.93
8.93 15.39
15.39 30.71
Case 6.26 7.77 13.15
Case
Case 3 6.26 7.77 13.15
Experiment Case 33 6.26
6.28 7.77
7.86 13.15
16.50
Experiment
Experiment Case
Case 33 6.28
6.28 7.86
7.86 16.50
(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3

Figure 15. Mode shapes of the SMART 2013 RC structure for the model Case 1.
Figure 15. Mode
Figure shapes
15. Mode ofofthe
shapes theSMART 2013RC
SMART 2013 RCstructure
structure for model
for the the model
Case 1.Case 1.

4.2. Seismic Analysis to Low-Intensity Ground Motions
Alongside the modal analysis result, the seismic response of the SMART 2013 structure to low-
intensity ground motions was investigated. A classical Rayleigh damping was introduced to the
SMART 2013 RC building with the following equation:
𝐂 = 𝛼𝐌 + 𝛽𝐊 (10)
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 12 of 23
4.2. Seismic Analysis to Low-Intensity Ground Motions

Alongside the modal analysis result, the seismic response of the SMART 2013 structure to
low-intensity ground motions was investigated. A classical Rayleigh damping was introduced to the
SMART 2013 RC building with the following equation:
C = αM + βK (10)
where M and K are the mass and stiffness matrices of the structure, respectively. The two coefficients α
and β are determined by solving the following system of equations:
" #" # " #
1 1/ωi ωi α ζi
= (11)
2 1/ω j ωj β ζj
where ωi and ω j are the natural frequencies corresponding to modes i and j, respectively, and ζ i and ζ j are
the modal damping ratios for each mode. Table 6 shows the natural frequencies of the first three modes,
and the corresponding modal damping ratios obtained by modal experiments. The modal damping ratios
were obtained by analyzing the response of the structure with 28 accelerometers under the low-level (PGA
< 0.1 g) biaxial random ground motion using a stochastic subspace identification bottom approach [23].
The coefficients α and β were calculated by solving Equation (11) using the frequencies and damping
ratios for the first and second modes. The calculated α and β are −1.649 and 0.002, respectively.
Table 6. Modal damping ratios obtained by experiments.
Mode Frequency, ! (Hz) Modal Damping Ratio, ı

1 6.28 0.026
2 7.86 0.042
3 16.50 0.055
Figure 18 shows the time history of the low-intensity ground motion. The time signal is the
one scaled by 50% from the Northridge earthquake. The PGA is about 0.1 g in both the x and y
directions. The structural response to the ground motion is calculated without considering material
nonlinearity. Figures 19–21 show the seismic response of each floor of the SMART 2013 RC structure to
the low-intensity ground motion at sampling point A. The calculated displacement and acceleration
showed excellent agreement with the experimental results.
Table 7 presents the absolute maximum seismic response of the structure at the sampling point A.
Both the displacement and acceleration values agreed quite well with the experimental results.
Table 7. Absolute maximum seismic responses at point A due to the low-intensity ground motions.
Displacement, ux (mm) Acceleration, ax (m/s2 )

Floor
Analysis Experiment Analysis Experiment
1st floor 1.06 0.91 1.37 (0.14 g) 1.29 (0.13 g)
2nd floor 1.08 1.00 1.88 (0.19 g) 1.74 (0.18 g)
3rd floor 1.10 1.01 2.66 (0.27 g) 2.49 (0.25 g)
Appl. Sci. 2018,
Appl. 8, 4798, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sci. 2018, 13 of 23
13 of 23
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 18. Low-intensity(a) (b)ground acceleration.
ground motions; (a) ground displacement; (b)
18. Low-intensity
FigureFigure ground
18. Low-intensity motions;
(a) ground (a)(a)
motions; ground
grounddisplacement; (b)ground
displacement;(b)
(b) groundacceleration.
acceleration.
Figure 18. Low-intensity ground motions; (a) ground displacement; (b) ground acceleration.
Figure 18. Low-intensity ground motions; (a) ground displacement; (b) ground acceleration.
(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

Figure 19. First-floor(a)response
Displacement (b) Acceleration
in the x direction due to the low-intensity ground motion; responses
Figure 19. First-floor response in the x direction due to the low-intensity
(a) Displacement ground motion; responses
(b) Acceleration
sampled at point
19. First-floor
Figure Figure A.
response in the x direction due to the low-intensity ground motion; responses
sampled 19.atFirst-floor
point A. response in the x direction due to the low-intensity ground motion; responses
sampled at point
Figure
sampled A. A. response in the x direction due to the low-intensity ground motion; responses
19.atFirst-floor
point
sampled at point A.

(a) Displacement
Figure 20. Second-floor (b) Acceleration
response in the x direction due to the low-intensity ground motion; responses
Figure 20. Second-floor response in the x direction due to the low-intensity ground motion; responses
sampled at point A.(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration
Figure
sampled20.atSecond-floor
20. Second-floor
FigureFigure response
20.atSecond-floor in the
response x direction
in the x directiondue
dueto
tothe
the low-intensity ground
low-intensity ground motion;
motion; responses
responses
sampled point A.
sampled at point A.
sampled at point A.

Figure 21. Third-floor(a) Displacement
response (b) Acceleration
in the x direction due to the low-intensity ground motion; responses
Figure 21. Third-floor response in the x direction due to the low-intensity ground motion; responses
sampled at point A. (a) Displacement (b) Acceleration
Figure
sampled21.atThird-floor
Figure 21.atThird-floor
Figure sampled
21. Third-floor response in the x direction due to the low-intensity ground motion; responses
sampled at point A.
sampled at point A.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 14 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2018,
5. Nonlinear 8, x FORResponse
Seismic PEER REVIEW
of the SMART 2013 RC Structure 14 of 23
After
5.
5. Nonlinear theSeismic
Nonlinear seismic
Seismicsimulation
Response
Response oftoof
thethe
the low-intensity
SMART2013
SMART 2013RC ground
RC motion, the inelastic seismic response
Structure
Structure
of the asymmetric three-storey RC structure subjected to high-intensity ground motions was
AfterAfter
investigated.
the seismic
the Such
seismic simulation
simulation
a nonlinear
to the
to the
analysis
low-intensity
low-intensity
was part of the
ground
ground
SMART
motion,the
motion, theinelastic
inelasticseismic
2013 international
seismicresponse
response of
benchmark. The
of the asymmetric three-storey RC structure subjected to high-intensity ground motions was
the asymmetric
analysis three-storey
case consisted RC structure subjectedthree
to high-intensity ground motions the wasdesign
investigated.
investigated. Such aof several
nonlinear simulations
analysis was for part of the different
SMARTseismic sequences:
2013 international benchmark. signal
The
Such a9),
nonlinear
(Runanalysis
the case analysisearthquake
Northridge was part ofmain the SMART 2013 international benchmark. The analysis case
consisted of several simulations for three different seismic sequences: the design signalthe
shocks (Run 11, Run 13, Run 17, and Run 19), and
consisted
Northridge of several simulations for three different seismic sequences: the design signal (Run 9),
(Run 9),aftershock (Run earthquake
the Northridge 21 and Runmain 23). shocks
The “Runs”(Run 11,areRun
different
13, Runregarding
17, and the Runstrength
19), and of thethe
the Northridge
ground earthquake
motions.aftershock
Northridge The PGA(Run main
of each shocks
ground
21 and (Run
Run motion 11, Run
23). Theis“Runs” 13, Run
presented 17, and Run
in Tableregarding
are different 19),
8. The ground and the Northridge
motionofofthe
the strength Run
aftershock
19 isground (Run
the unscaled21 and Run
Northridge 23). The “Runs”
earthquake are
withdifferent
PGAs regarding
of 1.1 g the
and strength
1.0 g in
motions. The PGA of each ground motion is presented in Table 8. The ground motion of Run of
the the
x ground
and y motions.
directions,
The PGA
19 is of
theeach
respectively. ground
unscaled
Figure motionthe
22Northridge
shows isearthquake
presented
time history in Table
with the8.input
ofPGAs The ground
of 1.1 g and motion
ground 1.0 g inofthe
motion Run
used 19
forisythe
x and the unscaled
directions,
nonlinear
Northridge
respectively.
seismic with PGAs of 1.1 g and 1.0 g in the x and y
analysis. Figure 22 shows the time history of the input ground motion used for the nonlinear22
earthquake directions, respectively. Figure
shows the time
seismic history of the input ground motion used for the nonlinear seismic analysis.
analysis.
Table 8. Nominal input ground motions for a nonlinear seismic analysis.
Table
Table 8. Nominal
8. Nominal input
input ground
ground motionsfor
motions foraanonlinear
nonlinear seismic
seismic analysis.
analysis.
Run PGA X (g) PGA Y (g) Percentage of Nominal Signal (%) Type
9 Run 0.22
PGA X (g) 0.23
PGA Y (g) Percentage of100
Nominal Signal (%) Type signal–nominal
Design earthquake
Run 9 PGA X0.22
(g) PGA0.23
Y (g) Percentage of Nominal Signal (%) Type
11 0.21 0.16 11100 DesignNorthridge
Scaled earthquake signal–nominal 1
earthquake–step
139 11 0.40 0.21
0.22 0.16
0.23
0.21 11
22100 Scaled Northridge
Design
Scaled earthquake
Northridge earthquake–step 1 2
signal–nominal
earthquake–step
11 13 0.60
17 0.40
0.21 0.21
0.16
0.40 4422
11 Scaled
ScaledNorthridge
Scaled Northridgeearthquake–step
Northridge earthquake–step
earthquake–step21
3
13 17 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.21 44
22 Scaled
ScaledNorthridge
Northridgeearthquake–step
earthquake–step32
19 1.10 1.00 100 Real Northridge earthquake–nominal
17 19 0.60
1.10 0.40
1.00 44
100 Scaled
Real Northridge
Northridge earthquake–step 3
earthquake–nominal
21
19 21 0.14
1.10 0.14
1.00 33100 Scaled Northridge aftershock–step 1
Real Northridge
0.14 0.14 33 Scaled Northridgeearthquake–nominal
aftershock–step 1
23
21 23 0.70
0.14
0.70
0.40
0.14
0.40
10033
100
Real Northridge
Scaled
Real Northridge
Northridge
aftershock–nominal
aftershock–step 1
aftershock–nominal
23 0.70 0.40 100 Real Northridge aftershock–nominal
Figure 22. High-intensity ground motions for a nonlinear seismic analysis of the SMART 2013
Figure 22. High-intensity ground motions for a nonlinear seismic analysis of the SMART 2013
structure.
Figure 22. High-intensity ground motions for a nonlinear seismic analysis of the SMART 2013 structure.
structure.
First, the ground displacement of Run 9 was applied to the structure at the actuator locations of
First,
First, the
the ground
ground displacement
displacement of Run 99 was
was applied to
to the structure at at the actuator locations of
the shaking table. Figure 23 showsofthe Run applied
experimental the structure
and numerical responses the
of actuator locations
the structure in the of
the
the shaking
shaking table.
table.
x direction Figure
Figureat
sampled 23 shows
23point
shows Athe of experimental
the third floor.and
experimental
the Thenumerical
and numericalresponses
numerical response of
responses ofthe
thestructure
agreed structure
well with inin
the
thethex
direction
x directionsampled
sampled
experimental at point A
at The
result. of
point the third
A of the
absolute floor. The numerical
third floor.
maximum values The response agreed
numerical response
of displacement well with the experimental
agreedobtained
and acceleration well with fromthe
result.
theThe
experimental absolute
shaking table
result.maximum
test were
The values ofand
2.02 maximum
absolute mm displacement
4100 mm/s
values and
of2 accelerationThey
,displacement
respectively. obtained
and fromtwice
are about
acceleration theobtained
shaking
as hightableas
from
test were 2.02 mm and 4100 mm/s 2 , respectively. They are about twice as high as the responses to the
2
the shaking table test were 2.02 mm and 4100 mm/s , respectively. They are about twice as high as
the responses to the low-intensity ground motion in Section 4.2, where the earthquake signal is scaled
low-intensity
by 50%. ground
the responses motion in Section
to the low-intensity ground 4.2,motion
where the earthquake
in Section signal the
4.2, where is scaled by 50%.signal is scaled
earthquake
by 50%.
Figure 23. Numerical and experimental responses in the x direction due to the ground motion of Run
Figure 23. Numerical and experimental responses in the x direction
(a) at
Displacement due to the ground motion of Run
(b) Acceleration
9; responses sampled point A on the third floor.
9; responses sampled at point A on the third floor.
Figure 23. Numerical and experimental responses in the x direction due to the ground motion of Run
9; responses sampled at point A on the third floor.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 15 of 23

Following Run
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x 9,
FOR the Northridge
PEER REVIEW earthquake’s main shocks (Run 11, Run 13, Run 17, and 15 Run
of 23 19)
Following
with successively
Appl. Sci. RunPEER
increasing
2018, 8, x FOR 9, thePGANorthridge
REVIEW were applied earthquake’s main shocks
to the structure (Run
at the 11, Runlocations
actuator 13, Run 17, of and Run
the15shaking
of 23
Following
19) with Run 9,increasing
successively the Northridge PGA were earthquake’s
applied main
to theshocks
structure (Run
at 11,
theRun 13, Run
actuator 17, and
locations ofRun
the
table. Figures 24–27 show the displacement and acceleration at point A of the third floor. Overall,
19) with
shaking successively
table.
Following Run 9,increasing
Figures 24–27 show
the Northridge PGAthe were applied main
displacement
earthquake’s to
andtheshocks
structure
acceleration(Runatatthe
11, actuator
point
Run A ofRun
13, locations
the17, andof
third the
floor.
Run
the numerical responses agreed well with experimental results, even during the high-intensity ground
Overall,
shaking the
19) with table. numerical
successively responses
Figuresincreasing
24–27 show agreed
PGA thewere well withtoand
displacement
applied experimental
structureresults,
theacceleration at at
the even
point
actuator during
A of the third
locations the ofhigh-
floor.
the
motions. The response
Overall,
intensity the
shaking table. numerical
ground Figures
was24–27
motions.largest
responses
Theshow
in the
response casewas
agreed of Run
well with19,
largest
the displacement and
where
experimental
in the casethe absolute
acceleration results,
of Run maximum
even
19,
at point during
where
A of thethe
displacement
the high-
absolute
third floor.
and acceleration were 36.73 mm and 22,420 2 (2.28 g), respectively. These
intensity
maximum
Overall, the ground
displacement
numericalmotions. andThe agreedmm/s
response
acceleration
responses was
well largest
were 36.73
with mm in the
and case
experimental of
22,420 mm/s
Run 19,
results, 2 values
where
(2.28
even are
the about
high-13.4
absolute
g), respectively.
during the
and 5.8These
times higher than the calculated responses from Run 9, respectively. 2
maximum
intensity valuesdisplacement
ground about and
are motions. 13.4
Theacceleration
and 5.8 times
response were 36.73 mm
washigher
largest than and
in the thecase of mm/s
22,420
calculated 19,(2.28
Run responseswhereg),from
respectively.
the Run 9,
absolute
2 experimental
Inrespectively.
Run 13,
These
maximum valuesthe numerical
are
displacement about and response
13.4 and 5.8does
acceleration timesnothigher
were reflect
36.73 theand
than
mm the mm/sresponses
high-frequency
calculated
22,420 (2.28 g), from response
Run
respectively. 9,
respectively.
These
well after In values
about Run5 13,
s. aretheabout
This numerical13.4 response
difference and
in response does may
5.8 times not reflect
higher than
be due the high-frequency
tothe calculated
a gradual experimental
responses
error fromresponse
in predicting Run 9,
structural
well In Run
after
respectively.
stiffness during 13, 5the
about
numerical numerical
s. This difference
analysis response
[34,35]. does
in response not
Despitemayreflect the
be partial
the due to high-frequency
adifference
gradual error experimental
in
between predicting responseand
structural
the numerical
stiffness
well after
experimental In Runduring13, numerical
about
results, 5the
s. This
the numerical
computed analysis
difference [34,35].
in
response
displacement Despite
response
does may
not
and the
be
reflect partial
duethe
acceleration adifference
to high-frequency
gradual
appear between
error in
to capture the numerical
predicting
experimental and
structural
response
the general trend
stiffness
well afterduring
experimental about 5numerical
results,
s. This analysis in
thedifference
computed [34,35]. Despite
displacement
response maythe and
be duepartial
to adifference
acceleration
gradual between
appear
error to the numerical
capture
in predicting the and
general
structural
of the experimental seismic behavior of the structure. After Run 13, the first three natural frequencies
experimental
trend of during
stiffness results,
the experimental
numericalthe computed
seismic behavior
analysis displacement
[34,35]. and
of the the
Despite acceleration
structure.
partial appear
After Run
difference 13, to
between thecapture
first the natural
three
the numerical general
and
of the structure decreased by 26.66%, 19.98%, and 17.72%, respectively. These results implied that the
trend of theofexperimental
frequencies
experimental the structure
results, seismic
decreased
the computed behavior of the 19.98%,
by 26.66%,
displacement structure.
and andAfter
acceleration Run
17.72%,
appear 13, tothecapture
first These
respectively. three natural
results
the general
stiffness of the SMART
frequencies
implied
trend ofthat theof thethe 2013
stiffness
experimental
RC
structure structure
decreased
ofseismic
the SMART decreased
by
behavior 26.66%,
2013 ofRC
after
structure
the
Run decreased
19.98%,
structure.
13After
and compared
17.72%, to its initial
respectively.
after
Run 13,Runthe13
stiffness.
These
compared
first
In the
results
three naturalto its
shaking table
implied
initial test
stiffness.
frequencies corresponding
thatofthe Instiffness
the the shaking
structure of the to
table Run
SMART
decreased 13, significant
2013 RC structure
test corresponding
by 26.66%, cracks
to Runand
19.98%, began
decreased
13, 17.72%,to develop
after
significant at
Run 13began
cracks
respectively. the
compared
These lower to its of
to develop part
results
concreteat walls
initial
the
implied lower and
stiffness.
that the
part
the Inof column.
the shaking
concrete
stiffness table
of walls
the testthe
and
SMART corresponding
column.
2013 RC structureto Run 13, significant
decreased after cracks
Run 13begancompared to develop
to its
at the lower
initial partInofthe
stiffness. concrete
shakingwalls
tableand
testthe column.
corresponding to Run 13, significant cracks began to develop
at the lower part of concrete walls and the column.

Figure 24. Numerical and experimental responses in the x direction due to the scaled Northridge
Figure 24. Numerical and (a) Displacementresponses in the x direction
experimental due to the scaled Northridge
(b) Acceleration
earthquake of Run 11; responses
Figure 24. Numerical sampled responses
and experimental at point A in
onthe
the xthird floor. due to the scaled Northridge
direction
earthquake of Run 11; responses sampled at point A on the third floor.
Figure 24. Numerical sampledresponses
and experimental at point Ainonthe
thexthird floor. due to the scaled Northridge
direction

onthe
direction
direction

onthe
direction
direction
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 16 of 23
(a) Displacement, ux (b) Acceleration, ax
(a) Displacement, ux (b) Acceleration, ax
(c) Displacement, uy (d) Acceleration, ay
Figure 27. Numerical and experimental responses due to real Northridge earthquake of Run 19;
Figure 27. Numerical and experimental responses due to real Northridge earthquake of Run 19;
responses sampled at point A on the third floor.
(c) Displacement, uy (d) Acceleration, ay
Figures 28 and 29 show the numerical and experimental responses of the SMART 2013 RC
Figurethe
27. Numerical and experimental responses
21 and due
Runto23).
realOverall,
Northridge earthquake of Run 19;
Figures 28 for
structure and 29Northridge aftershock
show the numerical (Run
and experimental responses thethe
of numerical
SMARTresults 2013 RC reflected
structure
the experimental results, although there was a slight phase
for the Northridge aftershock (Run 21 and Run 23). Overall, the numerical results reflected difference in the result of Run 23. The the
difference could be because the numerical model did not accurately reflect the stiffness degradation
experimental Figures
results,28although
and 29 show therethe wasnumerical
a slight phase difference in
and experimental the result
responses of Run
of the SMART 23. The
2013 difference
RC
after severe for damage to the structure. The cumulative error of numerical solutions results
of earlier seismic
could be structure
because thethe Northridge
numerical aftershock
model did (Run 21 and Run reflect
not accurately 23). Overall, the numerical
the stiffness degradation reflected
after severe
sequences might have
the experimental also although
results, influenced the response
there difference. Tables 9inand the 10 present the23.absolute
damage to
maximum the structure.
displacementThe cumulative
and the errorwas
acceleration,
a slight
of numerical phase difference
solutions of earlier result of Run
seismic sequences The
might
difference could be because numerical respectively,
model did notthat were calculated
accurately from each
reflect the stiffness simulation
degradation
have also
stage.influenced the response difference. Tables 9 and 10 present the absolute maximum displacement
afterThe displacement
severe damage to the error was lessThe
structure. than 10% for error
cumulative Run 19, wherein the
of numerical ground
solutions motionseismic
of earlier was the
and acceleration,
strongest,
sequences respectively,
whereas
might have the alsothat
error werearound
was
influenced calculated from
20–30%
the response each
for simulation
other
difference. runs. 9Table
Tables stage.
and The
11present
10 showsdisplacement absoluteerror
theabsolute
the
was less than
maximum 10%seismic
maximum for Run 19, wherein
responses
displacement and the ground
at acceleration,
sampling pointsmotion
A to D
respectively,was
in the
both
that strongest,
were x andwhereas
thecalculated the for
y directions
from each errorthewascasearound
simulation of
20–30%Runfor 19.
stage. Although
Theruns.
other the peak
displacement
Table values
11 error
shows was were
theless somewhat
than 10%
absolute different
for
maximum Run 19, from the
wherein
seismic experimental
the ground
responses values,was
motion
at sampling the timeA to
the
points
histories
D in both the x in
strongest,
and Figures
whereas 23–29
y directions show
the error
for the that
wascasethe ofnumerical
around Run20–30% solution
for other
19. Although had
the a similar
runs.
peak Table
valuestendency
11 were to
showssomewhat
thetheabsolute
response
different
maximum
obtained fromseismic
the responses at sampling
experiment. Figure 30points
shows A to
theD concrete
in both thewallsx andafter
y directions
the for the table
shaking case oftest
from the experimental values, the time histories in Figures 23–29 show that the numerical solution had a
Run 19. Although
corresponding to Runs the13–19.
peak values
Severewerecracks somewhat different
and spalling from theoccurred
of concrete experimental
at thevalues,
lower the parttime
of the
similar tendency
histories
to Figures
in
the response
23–29
obtained
show that
from
the
the experiment.
numerical solution
Figure
had a
30 shows
similar tendency
thetoconcrete
the
walls after
response
concrete walls and the column connected to the foundation. Figures 31 and 32 show the Fourier
the shaking table test
obtained fromcorresponding
theofexperiment. to Figure
Runs 13–19.
30 xshowsSevere cracks
concreteand spalling of concrete occurred at the
frequency spectrum displacement in the and y the
directions, walls after the
respectively, shaking
for Runs 17,table
19, and test21.
lower part
Overall, the spectra show a good agreement with those obtained from the experiment, particularly in the
of the concrete
corresponding to walls
Runs and
13–19. the
Severecolumn
cracks connected
and spallingto
of the foundation.
concrete occurred Figures
at the 31
lower and
part 32
of show
the
concrete walls and the
Fourierthe
frequency
frequencyspectrum
range upof tocolumn
about 3connected
displacement Hz. in the to the foundation.
x and Figures
y directions, 31 and 32 for
respectively, showRuns the 17,
Fourier
19, and 21.
frequency
Overall, the spectraspectrum
show a of displacement
good agreementin with
the x those
and y directions, respectively,
obtained from for Runs 17,
the experiment, 19, and 21. in the
particularly
Overall, the spectra show a good agreement with those obtained from the experiment, particularly in
frequency range up to about 3 Hz.
the frequency range up to about 3 Hz.
aftershock of Run 21; responses sampled at point A on the third floor.
Figure 28. Numerical
aftershock and
of Run experimental
21; responses responses
sampled at point Ain
onthe x direction
the third floor. due to the scaled Northridge
aftershock of Run 21; responses sampled at point A on the third floor.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 17 of 23
Figure 29. Numerical and experimental responses in the x direction due to real Northridge aftershock
Figure 29. Numerical and experimental responses in the x direction due to real Northridge aftershock
of Run 23; responses sampled at point A on the third floor.
of Run 23; responses sampled at point A on the third floor.
Table 9. Absolute maximum displacement at point A on the third floor.
Table 9. Absolute maximum displacement at point A on the third floor.
Absolute Maximum Displacement, ux
Seismic Simulation
Analysis (mm) Experiment (mm) Error (%)
Absolute Maximum Displacement, ux
Run 9
Seismic Simulation 2.47 2.02 22.28
Run 11 Analysis (mm)
4.83 Experiment
5.57 (mm) Error
13.29 (%)
Run 9 Run 13 2.47 9.51 12.92
2.02 26.39
22.28
Run 11Run 17 4.8315.23 22.02
5.57 30.84
13.29
Run 13Run 19 9.5133.09 12.92
36.73 26.39
9.91
Run 17Run 21 15.231.53 22.02
1.79 30.84
14.53
Run 19Run 23 33.094.93 36.73
7.66 9.91
35.64
Run 21 1.53 1.79 14.53
Run 23 4.93 7.66 35.64
Table 10. Absolute maximum acceleration at point A on the third floor.
Absolute Maximum Acceleration, ax

Table 10. Absolute
Seismic maximum acceleration at point A on the third floor.
Simulation
Analysis (m/s2) Experiment (m/s2) Error (%)
Run 9 3.88 (0.40 g)Maximum
Absolute 4.10Acceleration,
(0.42 g) ax 5.37
Run 11
Seismic Simulation 2.46 (0.25 g) 3.39 (0.34 g) 27.43
2 2 Error
Run 13 Analysis
5.67(m/s
(0.58) g) Experiment
9.73 (0.99(m/s
g) ) 41.73(%)
Run 9Run 17 3.8810.50
(0.40(1.07
g) g) 4.10
10.83(0.42 g)g)
(1.10 5.37
3.05
Run 11Run 19 2.4622.42
(0.25(2.28
g) g) 3.39
16.11(0.34 g)g)
(1.64 27.43
39.17
Run 13Run 21 5.67 4.42
(0.58(0.45
g) g) 9.73
3.23(0.99
(0.33g)g) 41.73
36.84
Run 17Run 23 10.5013.15
(1.07(1.34
g) g) 10.83 (1.10 g)
9.28 (0.95 g) 3.05
41.70
Run 19 22.42 (2.28 g) 16.11 (1.64 g) 39.17
Run 21 4.42 (0.45 g) 3.23 (0.33 g) 36.84
Table 11. Absolute maximum seismic responses at sampling points A to D in both x and y directions
Run 23 13.15 (1.34 g) 9.28 (0.95 g) 41.70
for the analysis case of Run 19.
A B C D
Table 11. Absolute maximum seismic responses at sampling points A to D in both x and y directions
Error Error Error Error
for the analysisAnal.
case ofExper.
Run 19. (%) Anal. Exper. (%) Anal. Exper. (%) Anal. Exper. (%)
𝑢𝑥 (mm) 33.09 36.79 10.06 33.03 35.34 6.54 33.90 51.67 34.39 35.81 85.39 58.06
𝑢𝑦 (mm) 17.96 A 23.20 22.59 22.74 B55.89 59.31 22.77 C
55.36 58.87 17.95 D
22.31 19.54
𝑎𝑥 (m/s2) 22.42 16.11Error
39.17 20.27 14.61 Error
38.74 25.52 16.78 Error
52.09 34.32 32.01 7.22
Error
𝑎𝑦 (m/sAnal.
2
) 18.05Exper.
18.37 (%) 1.74 Anal.
31.76 Exper.
26.89 (%)18.11 Anal.
31.95 Exper. 14.93 Anal.
27.80 (%) 17.67 Exper.
17.57 0.57
(%)
u x (mm) 33.09 36.79 10.06 33.03 35.34 6.54 33.90 51.67 34.39 35.81 85.39 58.06
uy (mm) 17.96 23.20 22.59 22.74 55.89 59.31 22.77 55.36 58.87 17.95 22.31 19.54
a x (m/s2 ) 22.42 16.11 39.17 20.27 14.61 38.74 25.52 16.78 52.09 34.32 32.01 7.22
ay (m/s2 ) 18.05 18.37 1.74 31.76 26.89 18.11 31.95 27.80 14.93 17.67 17.57 0.57
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 18 of 23
(a) Wall V04 (b) Wall V02

(a) Wall V04 (b) Wall V02
Figure 30. Damages(a)
inWall
the lower
V04 part of the concrete walls connected to the
(b) Wall V02foundation [23,30].
30. Damages
FigureFigure 30. Damages in the lower part of the concrete walls connected totothe
in the lower part of the concrete walls connected thefoundation
foundation [23,30].
[23,30].
Figure 30. Damages in the lower part of the concrete walls connected to the foundation [23,30].
(a) Run 17 (PGA 0.6 g) (b) Run 19 (PGA 1.1 g) (c) Run 23 (PGA 0.7 g)
(a) Run31.
Figure 17Frequency
(PGA 0.6 g) (b)x Run
spectrum of the 19 (PGA
directional 1.1 g)
displacement (c)ARun
at point 23 (PGA
on the 0.7 g)
third floor.
Figure 31. Frequency spectrum of the x directional displacement at point A on the third floor.
Figure 31. Frequency spectrum of the x directional displacement at point A on the third
Figure 31. Frequency spectrum of the x directional displacement at point A on the third floor. floor.
Figure
(a) Run 32. Frequency
17 (PGA 0.4 g)spectrum of the(b)
y directional
Run 19 (PGA displacement
1.0 g) at point (c)
A on the23third
Run (PGAfloor.
0.4 g)
Figure 32. Frequency spectrum of the y directional displacement at point A on the third floor.
Figure 32. Frequency spectrum of the y directional displacement at point A on the third floor.
6. Torsional
Figure 32.Behavior Frequency spectrum of the y directional displacement at point A on the third floor.
6. Torsional Behavior
6. Torsional
The SMART Behavior2013 RC structure is asymmetric in plan view, as shown in Figure 2. In general,
6. Torsional The
asymmetric SMART
Behaviorstructures 2013often RC structure is asymmetric
exhibit coupled flexuralinand plan view, asbehaviors
torsional shown inagainstFigurelateral2. In general,
loads,
The SMART 2013 RC structure is asymmetric in and
plantorsional
view, as behaviors
shown in against
Figure 2.lateral In general,
since the line of action of the lateral load does not pass through the center of the stiffness ofloads,
asymmetric structures often exhibit coupled flexural the
asymmetric
ThesinceSMART
the linestructures
2013
of RC
action often
structure
of theexhibit is
lateral coupled
asymmetric
load flexural
does notin and
plan
pass torsional
view,
through asbehaviors
the shown
center against
in
of Figure
the lateral
2.
stiffness Inloads,
ofgeneral,
the
structure when viewed in plan [36–41]. Figure 33 shows the displacement trace at the sampling points
since
asymmetric the
structure line
when
structures of action
viewedoften of
in the
plan
exhibitlateral
[36–41]. load
coupled Figure does 33 not
shows
flexural and pass
the through the
displacement
torsional center
trace
behaviors of
at the
the stiffness
sampling
against of the
points
lateral loads,
of the third floor of the building during the Northridge main shock with Run 19. The displacement
structure
of the thirdwhen floor viewed
of the inbuilding
plan [36–41].
during Figure
the 33 shows the
Northridge maindisplacement
shock with trace
Run at19.
theThe sampling
displacementpoints
sincetraces
the line of action of the lateral load does not pass through
indicate that the building was not only bent by seismic forces, but also twisted. Figure 34 shows the center of the stiffness of the
of the
traces third
indicate floor of
that the
the building
building during
was not the
only Northridge
bent by main
seismic shock
forces, with
but Run
also 19.
twisted. The displacement
Figure 34 shows
structure when viewed in plan [36–41]. Figure 33 shows the displacement
the distortion of each floor of the building at 8.6 s, when the seismic response was the largest, as can trace at the sampling points
traces
the indicate of
distortion that thefloor
each building of thewas not only
building atbent
8.6 s,by seismic
when forces,
thephase
seismic but also twisted.
response was Figure
the largest,34 shows
as can
of thebe
the
seen
third in Figure
floor
distortion
27.
ofofthe
each
For the calculated
building
floor of during
the
torsional
buildingthe at 8.6
response,
Northridges, when
the
main
the shock
seismic
was similar
with
response Run to what
was 19.
the
was
The obtained
displacement
largest, as can
be seen in Figure 27. For the calculated torsional response, the phase was similar to what was obtained
tracesfrom
be
the shaking
indicate
seen that
in shaking
Figure the table
27.
test. Furthermore,
building
For test. was not only
the calculated
the
torsional bentcalculated
by seismic
response,
torsional
the
response
forces, butsimilar
phase response
was alsoseems
twisted.to reflect
to what Figure
was
the34
obtained
testshows
from
result the
in that the table
degree of Furthermore,
twist was more the calculated
substantial on torsional
the higher floors. seems
However, to the
reflect the test
numerical
the distortion
from
result thein of each
shaking
that the floor
table of
degree the
test.
of building
Furthermore,
twist was moreat 8.6
the s, when the
calculated
substantial seismic
torsional response
response was the
seems largest,
to reflect theastest can be
plan view deformation seems to be more correlated to aon the
horizontal higher floors. However,
translation rather than the anumerical
twisting
seen in Figure
result
plan viewin 27.
that For
the
deformation the
degree calculated
of
seemstwist torsional
was more response,
substantial onthethe phase
higher was similar
floors. However,to whatthe was
numericalobtained
mode. The difference could be to be more
because thecorrelated
numerical tomodel
a horizontal
did not translation
accuratelyratherreflect thantheareduced
twisting
plan
from themode. view
shakingThe deformation
table test.
difference seems
could betobecause
Furthermore,be morethe correlated
the calculated
numerical to amodel
horizontal
torsional
did translation
notresponse
accurately rather
seems than
reflect tothe a twisting
reflect
reduced the test
torsional stiffness of the damaged structure.
mode.
result torsional
in that theThe difference
degree
stiffness of of could
thetwist
damagedbe because
was structure. the numerical model did not accurately
more substantial on the higher floors. However, the numerical reflect the reduced
torsional
plan view stiffness ofseems
deformation the damagedto be more structure.
correlated to a horizontal translation rather than a twisting
mode. The difference could be because the numerical model did not accurately reflect the reduced
torsional stiffness of the damaged structure.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 19 of 23
Appl.
Appl. Sci.Sci.
2018,2018,
8, x8,FOR
x FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 19 of
1923
of 23
(a) First floor (b) Second floor (c) Third floor

Figure 33. Displacement trace at sampling points during the Northridge main shock of Run 19.
Figure 33. Displacement
Figure trace
33. Displacement traceatatsampling
sampling points duringthe
points during theNorthridge
Northridge main
main shock
shock of Run
of Run 19. 19.
Figure 33. Displacement trace at sampling points during the Northridge main shock of Run 19.
(a) Numerical result (b) Experimental result

(a) Numerical
Figure 34. Distortion result
of each (b) Experimental
floor due to the Northridge result19) at 8.6 s.
main shock (Run
Figure 34. Distortion of each floor due to the Northridge main shock (Run 19) at 8.6 s.
In to Distortion
order34.
Figure of each floor
further investigate due to the
the torsional Northridge
effect, main shock
we compared (Run 19)
the seismic at 8.6 s.of the
response
asymmetric SMART 2013(a) Numerical
structure result
with the response of a(b)hypothetical
Experimentalsymmetric
result structure. Figure
In order to further investigate the torsional effect, we compared the seismic response of the
35 shows a plan view
Figure of the symmetric
34. Distortion of each floorstructure
due to theand the corresponding
Northridge three-dimensional
main shock (Run 19) at 8.6 s. finite
In order toSMART
asymmetric further2013investigate
structure the withtorsional
the response effect,
of awe compared
hypothetical the seismic
symmetric response
structure. Figureof the
element model. The number of floors, thickness of the floors and walls, dimensions of the column,
35 length
shows
asymmetric a
SMART
In plan
in order view
2013 of
to further
the x and the
structure symmetric
with
investigate
y directions, mass the structure
response
theoftorsional
each floor,andof
effect,the
a
andwe corresponding
hypothetical
compared
materials three-dimensional
symmetric
thewere
used seismic structure.
the response
same as of forthefinite
Figure 35
the
element model.
shows aasymmetric
plan The
viewSMART
asymmetric ofSMARTnumber
the symmetric
2013
2013 of floors, thickness
structure
structure
structure. with theand of the floors and
the corresponding
response walls, dimensions
of a hypotheticalthree-dimensional of the
symmetric structure. Figure column,
finite element
length
model. The35in the xa and
shows
number plan yview
directions,
of floors, of massofof
the symmetric
thickness theeach floor,
structure
floors and
and
and thematerials
walls, used three-dimensional
corresponding
dimensions were
of the thecolumn,
same asfinitefor thein the
length
asymmetric
elementSMART 2013
model. The structure.
number of floors, thickness of the floors and walls, dimensions of the column,
x and y directions, mass of each floor, and materials used were the same as for the asymmetric SMART
length in the x and y directions, mass of each floor, and materials used were the same as for the
2013 structure.
asymmetric SMART 2013 structure.
(a) Plan view (b) Finite element model
Figure 35. Finite element modeling of a hypothetical symmetric structure for comparison with the
SMART 2013 RC structure.(a) Plan view (b) Finite element model
(a) Plan view (b) Finite element model
Figure 35. Finite
In Figure 36, element modeling of
the displacement a hypothetical
responses of thesymmetric
asymmetricstructure
SMART for2013
comparison with
structure andthethe
Figure 35. Finite element modeling of a hypothetical symmetric structure for comparison with the
SMART
Figure 2013
hypothetical
35. Finite RC structure.
symmetric
element structure
modelingdue
of atohypothetical
the Northridge main shock
symmetric are compared
structure with each with
for comparison other.the
SMART 2013 RC structure.
The responses
SMART are sampled at point D. On the first floor, the responses were similar to each other.
2013 RC structure.
In Figure
However, the36, the displacement
difference in responseresponses
became of the
more asymmetric SMART 2013 Thestructure and the
In Figure 36, the displacement responses of substantial on the
the asymmetric higher 2013
SMART floors.
structure tendency
and theof
hypothetical
the greater symmetric
hypotheticalresponse of
symmetric structure
the due
asymmetric to
structure responses the Northridge
structure
due to the Northridge also main
appeared shock
in the are compared
frequency
main shock are compared with
response each
spectrum,
with structure
each other. other.
In Figure 36, the displacement of the asymmetric SMART 2013 and the
Theasresponses
shown in are
Figuresampled
37. at
Figures point
38 andD. On
39 the
compare first floor,
the the
absolute responses
maximum were similar
displacement
The responses are sampled at point D. On the first floor, the responses were similar to each other. to
foreach
the other.
two
hypothetical symmetric structure due to the Northridge main shock are compared with each other.
However,
cases. Forthe
However, alldifference
of the
the differencein response
sampling in points
response became
and all of more
became the substantial
floors,
more onthe
thehigher
the displacement
substantial on higher
responsefloors.
floors. ofTheThe
the tendency
asymmetric
tendency of of
The responses
thestructure
greater are sampled
response
wasresponse
the greater largerof than
the atasymmetric
of the
point
that D. hypothetical
of the
asymmetric
On the first
structure
structurealso
floor,
symmetric
also
thein
appeared responses
in thefrequency
appearedstructure.
the frequency
It can were
also similar
response
be
response seen to each
the other.
spectrum,
that
spectrum,
However, asthe
as shown difference
shown
in Figure 37.in37.
in Figure response
Figures
Figures 38 38 became
and and3939comparemore the
compare substantial
the absolute on the higher
absolute maximum
maximum floors.forThe
displacement
displacement tendency
the the
for twotwo of
the greater response
cases.cases.
For Forofall
all ofof
the the
the
samplingasymmetric
sampling points
points and structure
and allallofofthe also
floors,appeared
thefloors, in theresponse
the displacement
the displacement frequency
response theresponse
of of asymmetric
the asymmetricspectrum,
as shown structure
structure was was
in Figure larger
37.
larger than
thatthat
Figures
than 38of
of the
and
the hypothetical
39 compare
hypothetical symmetric structure.
the absolute
symmetric ItItcan
maximum
structure. canalso
alsobe seen thatthat
displacement
be seen the the
for the
two cases. For all of the sampling points and all of the floors, the displacement response of the
asymmetric structure was larger than that of the hypothetical symmetric structure. It can also be seen
that the response difference increased on the higher floors. The difference in the x directional absolute
Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2018,
2018,8,8,479
x FOR PEER REVIEW 20ofof23
20 23
response difference increased on the higher floors. The difference in the x directional absolute
maximum displacement
maximum between theasymmetric
asymmetric andsymmetric
symmetric structures was up to 15%,while
while the
maximumdisplacement
displacementbetween betweenthethe asymmetricand and symmetricstructures
structureswas
wasupupto
to15%,
15%, whilethe the
differenceininthe
difference they y directional
directional absolutemaximum
absolute maximumdisplacement
displacementwaswasupuptoto31%.
31%.The
Theresults
resultsindicate
indicate
difference in the y directional absolute maximum displacement was up to 31%. The results indicate
that, similartotoprevious
that, previousstudiesstudies[36–41],
[36–41],a alarger
largerseismic
seismicresponse
responseshould
shouldbebeconsidered
consideredininthe
theseismic
seismic
that,similar
similarAppl.
to previous
Sci. 2018, 8, xstudies
FOR PEER[36–41],
REVIEW a larger seismic response should be considered in the 20seismic
of 23
design ofananasymmetric
design asymmetric structure compared to a symmetric structure with same design conditions.
designof of an asymmetricstructure structurecompared
comparedtotoaasymmetric
symmetricstructure
structurewith
withsame
samedesign
designconditions.
conditions.
maximum displacement between the asymmetric and symmetric structures was up to 15%, while the
difference in the y directional absolute maximum displacement was up to 31%. The results indicate
that, similar to previous studies [36–41], a larger seismic response should be considered in the seismic
design of an asymmetric structure compared to a symmetric structure with same design conditions.
(a) 1st floor (b) 2nd floor (c) 3rd floor

Figure 36. Displacement responses of the asymmetric SMART 2013 structure and the hypothetical
Figure36.
Figure 36.Displacement
Displacement responses
responses of
ofthe
theasymmetric
asymmetric SMART
SMART2013 2013structure
structureand
andthethehypothetical
hypothetical
symmetric structure due to the Northridge earthquake (Run 19); Responses sampled at point D.
symmetricstructure
symmetric structure due
due toto the
the
(a) 1st floor Northridge
Northridge earthquake
earthquake (Run
(Run 19);
19);
(b) 2nd floor Responses
Responses sampled
sampled at point
(c) 3rd floor D.
at point D.
Figure 36. Displacement responses of the asymmetric SMART 2013 structure and the hypothetical
symmetric structure due to the Northridge earthquake (Run 19); Responses sampled at point D.

(a) 1st floor
Figure 37. Displacement frequency spectra of(b)the 2ndasymmetric
floor SMART 2013 (c) structure
3rd floor and the
Figure 37. Displacement frequency spectra of the asymmetric SMART 2013 structure and the
Figure 37. Displacement
hypothetical symmetric
Figure frequency
structure
37. Displacement spectra of
due tospectra
frequency the asymmetric
the Northridge SMART
earthquake
of the asymmetric 2013
SMART (Run structure andthethe
19); Displacement
2013 structure and
hypothetical symmetric structure due to the Northridge earthquake (Run 19); Displacement
hypothetical symmetric
q hypothetical structure
= √𝒖𝟐 symmetric due to the Northridge earthquake (Run 19); Displacement amplitude
structure due to the Northridge earthquake (Run 19); Displacement
𝟐 ) sampled at point D.
amplitude (|𝒖| 𝒙++𝒖𝒖 𝟐𝒚
|u| = u2x (|𝒖|
amplitude +
amplitude√𝒖𝟐𝒙(|𝒖|
u2y = sampled ) point
=𝒚at
√𝒖 sampled
𝟐 + 𝒖𝟐D. at point
) sampled D. D.
at point
𝒙 𝒚
(a) First floor (b) Second floor

(c) Third floor
Figure 38. Absolute maximum displacement in the x-direction of the asymmetric and the hypothetical
symmetric structures due to the Northridge earthquake (Run 19).
(c) Third floor
symmetric structures due to the Northridge earthquake
(c) Third floor (Run 19).
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 21 of 23
(c) Third floor

Figure 39. Absolute maximum displacement in the y direction of the asymmetric and the hypothetical
Figure 39. Absolute
symmetric structuresmaximum
due to the displacement in the y direction
Northridge earthquake (Run 19).of the asymmetric and the hypothetical
7. Conclusions
7. Conclusions
This study presented the finite element modeling and simulation of the asymmetric SMART
2013This
RC study presented
structure, the finite
considering elementeffect
torsional modeling
and and simulation
material of the asymmetric
nonlinearity. Local testsSMART
with a 2013
representative
RC volume element
structure, considering validated
torsional effectthe
andnonlinear
materialconstitutive
nonlinearity. models
Localset upwith
tests for concrete and
a representative
steel reinforcement.
volume The computed
element validated first three
the nonlinear naturalmodels
constitutive frequencies
set upwere 6.26 Hz,and
for concrete 7.77steel
Hz, reinforcement.
and 13.15
Hz, computed
The respectively,first
which were
three close frequencies
natural to the experimental
were 6.26 results. In theHz,
Hz, 7.77 seismic analysis
and 13.15 Hz,with low-
respectively,
intensity ground motions, the displacement and acceleration calculated at sampling
which were close to the experimental results. In the seismic analysis with low-intensity ground points showed
good agreement
motions, with the experimental
the displacement and accelerationresults. In the blind
calculated seismic points
at sampling simulation,
showed the good
consecutive
agreement
seismic sequence of design signal, Northridge main shock, and Northridge aftershock
with the experimental results. In the blind seismic simulation, the consecutive seismic sequence were used to
calculate the seismic response of the SMART 2013 RC structure at each floor.
of design signal, Northridge main shock, and Northridge aftershock were used to calculate The time history of the
displacement and acceleration, as well as their frequency spectrum, agreed reasonably with the result
seismic response of the SMART 2013 RC structure at each floor. The time history of displacement and
of the shaking table test that was conducted as part of the international benchmark. By investigating
acceleration, as well as their frequency spectrum, agreed reasonably with the result of the shaking
the torsional behavior of the asymmetric SMART 2013 structure due to the seismic load, it was shown
table test that was conducted as part of the international benchmark. By investigating the torsional
that the seismic response of the asymmetric structure was larger than that of the hypothetical
behavior of the asymmetric SMART 2013 structure due to the seismic load, it was shown that the
symmetric structure. The response difference increased on the higher floors. The result indicates that
seismic
a larger response of the asymmetric
seismic response structure was
should be considered in thelarger than
seismic that of
design theasymmetric
of an hypothetical symmetric
structure
structure. The response difference increased on the
compared to a symmetric structure with similar design conditions.higher floors. The result indicates that a larger
seismic response should be considered in the seismic design of an asymmetric structure compared to a
symmetric structure
Acknowledgments: with
This similar
research was design conditions.
supported by the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (Grant No. 14-51) and
by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) Grant (No. 20151510400100)
Acknowledgments: This
funded by the Ministry research
of Trade, was supported
Industry and Energybyofthe
the Korea Institute
Republic of Nuclear Safety (Grant No. 14-51)
of Korea.
and by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) Grant (No. 20151510400100)
Author by
funded Contributions:
the MinistryHyun-Kyu Lim, Jun and
of Trade, Industry WonEnergy
Kang and Ho-Seok
of the Chi of
Republic conceived
Korea. the main idea of this work;
Hyun-Kyu Lim prepared this article as the first author; Hyun-Kyu Lim, Jun Won Kang, Hongrak Pak and
Author Contributions: Hyun-Kyu Lim, Jun Won Kang and Ho-Seok Chi conceived the main idea of this work;
Young-Geun Lee contributed finite element simulation; Hyun-Kyu Lim, Jun Won Kang and Janghwan Kim
Hyun-Kyu Lim prepared this article as the first author; Hyun-Kyu Lim, Jun Won Kang, Hongrak Pak and
analyzed the numerical
Young-Geun and experimental
Lee contributed data; simulation;
finite element Hyun-Kyu Lim and Jun Won
Hyun-Kyu Lim,Kang wroteKang
Jun Won the paper.
and Janghwan Kim
analyzed
Conflicts the numerical
of Interest: Theand experimental
authors declare nodata; Hyun-Kyu
conflict Lim and Jun Won Kang wrote the paper.
of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 22 of 23
References
1. Bhattacharjee, S.S.; Léger, P. Concrete constitutive models for nonlinear seismic analysis of gravity
dams—State-of-the-art. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 1992, 19, 492–509. [CrossRef]
2. Willam, K.J. Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology. In Constitutive Models for Engineering Materials,
3rd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2002; Volume 3, pp. 3603–3633.
3. Chen, W.F. Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete; J. Ross Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
4. Kim, T.H.; Kim, Y.J.; Shin, H.M. Seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete bridge piers
supported by laminated rubber bearings. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2008, 29, 259–278. [CrossRef]
5. Jayalekshmi, B.R.; Deepthi, V.G.; Venkataramana, K.; Shivashankar, R. Seismic response analysis of reinforced
concrete frames including soil flexibility. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2013, 48, 1–16. [CrossRef]
6. Fardis, M.N.; Biskinis, D.E. Deformation capacity of RC members, as controlled by flexure or shear.
In Proceedings of the Otani Symposium 2003, Tokyo, Japan, 8–9 September 2003; Volume 511530.
7. Haselton, C.B.; Deierlein, G.G. Assessing Seismic Collapse Safety of Modern Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings;
PEER Report 2007/08; PEER Center, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2007.
8. Ibarra, L.F.; Medina, R.A.; Krawinkler, H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness
deterioration. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2005, 34, 1489–1511. [CrossRef]
9. Fischinger, M.; Rejec, K.; Isakovic, T. Modeling Inelastic Shear Response of RC Walls. In Proceedings of the
15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012.
10. Ueda, M.; Seya, H.; Ohmiya, Y.; Taniguchi, H.; Kambayashi, A. Nonlinear analysis on RC shear wall shaking
table test. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology,
Lyon, France, 17–22 August 1997.
11. Ile, N.; Reynouard, J.M. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shear wall under earthquake loading.
J. Earthq. Eng. 2000, 4, 183–214. [CrossRef]
12. Richard, B.; Ile, N.; Frau, A.; Ma, A.; Loiseau, O.; Giry, C.; Ragueneau, F. Experimental and numerical study
of a half-scaled reinforced concrete building equipped with thermal break components subjected to seismic
loading up to severe damage state. Eng. Struct. 2015, 92, 29–45. [CrossRef]
13. Pegon, P.; Magonette, G.; Molina, F.J.; Verzeletti, G.; Dyngeland, T.; Negro, P.; Tognoli, P. Programme SAFE:
Rapport du Test T5; Unité Mécanique des Structures, Institut des Systèmes, de lInformatique et de la Sécurité,
Centre Commun de Recherche, Commission Européenne: Ispra, Italy, 1998; p. 21020.
14. Bisch, P.; Coin, A. The CASSBA project. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 28 August–2 September 1994.
15. Bisch, P.; Coin, A. The CAMUS research program. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France, 6–11 September 1998.
16. Richard, B.; Martinelli, P.; Voldoire, F.; Corus, M.; Chaudat, T.; Abouri, S.; Bonfils, N. SMART 2008: Shaking
table tests on an asymmetrical reinforced concrete structure and seismic margins assessment. Eng. Struct.
2015, 105, 48–61. [CrossRef]
17. Richard, B.; Martinelli, P.; Voldoire, F.; Chaudat, T.; Abouri, S.; Bonfils, N. SMART 2008: Overview, synthesis
and lessons learned from the International Benchmark. Eng. Struct. 2016, 106, 166–178. [CrossRef]
18. Panagiotou, M.; Restrepo, J.I.; Conte, J.P. Shake-table test of a full-scale 7-story building slice. Phase I:
Rectangular wall. J. Struct. Eng. 2010, 137, 691–704. [CrossRef]
19. Negro, P.; Verzeletti, G.; Magonette, G.E.; Pinto, A.V. Tests on a Fourstorey Full-Scale R/C Frame Designed
According to Eurocodes 8 and 2: Preliminary Report; Report EUR, 15879; Joint Research Centre: Ispra, Italy, 1994.
20. Magliulo, G.; Ramasco, R. Seismic response of three-dimensional r/c multi-storey frame building under
uni-and bi-directional input ground motion. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2007, 36, 1641–1657. [CrossRef]
21. Jeong, S.H.; Elnashai, A.S. Analytical assessment of an irregular RC frame for full-scale 3D pseudo-dynamic
testing part I: Analytical model verification. J. Earthq. Eng. 2005, 9, 95–128. [CrossRef]
22. Jeong, S.H.; Elnashai, A.S. Analytical assessment of an irregular RC frame for full-scale 3D pseudo-dynamic
testing part II: Condition assessment and test deployment. J. Earthq. Eng. 2005, 9, 265–284. [CrossRef]
23. Chaudat, T.; Charbonnel, P.E.; Garnier, C.; Le Corre, M.; Mahé, M.; Poupin, S.; Vasic, S. SMART 2013 Test
Report; SEMT/EMSI/NT/14-019; French Alternative Energies and Atomic Commission: Gif-sur-Yvette,
France, 2014.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479 23 of 23
24. Richard, B.; Fontan, M.; Mazars, J. SMART-2013: Overview, Synthesis and Lessons Learnt from the International
Benchmark; SEMT/EMSI/NT/14-037; French Alternative Energies and Atomic Commission: Gif-sur-Yvette,
France, 2014.
25. Richard, B.; Voldoire, F.; Fontan, M.; Mazars, J.; Chaudat, T.; Abouri, S.; Bonfils, N. SMART 2013: Lessons
learned from the international benchmark about the seismic margin assessment of nuclear RC buildings.
Eng. Struct. 2018, 161, 207–222. [CrossRef]
26. Richard, B.; Cherubini, S.; Voldoire, F.; Charbonnel, P.E.; Chaudat, T.; Abouri, S.; Bonfils, N. SMART 2013:
Experimental and numerical assessment of the dynamic behavior by shaking table tests of an asymmetrical
reinforced concrete structure subjected to high intensity ground motions. Eng. Struct. 2016, 109, 99–116.
[CrossRef]
27. Kachlakev, D.; Miller, T. Finite Element Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures Strengthened with FRP Laminates-
Final Report: 2001; FHWA-OR-RD-01-17; Oregon Department of Transportation: Salem, OR, USA, 2001.
28. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Mechanical APDL, Release 14.5; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2012.
29. Willam, K.J.; Warnke, E.P. Constitutive models for the triaxial behavior of concrete. Int. Assoc. Bridge Struct. Eng.
1975, 19, 1–30.
30. Richard, B.; Charbonnel, P.E. SMART 2013 International Benchmark Experimental Data for Stage #2; SEMT/
EMSI/NT/13-035/A; French Alternative Energies and Atomic Commission: Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 2013.
31. Chaudat, M.; Benjamin, R. SMART 2013 Data Acquisition Project; SEMT/EMSI/NT/13-003; French Alternative
Energies and Atomic Commission: Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 2013.
32. Crijanovschi, S.; Richard, B.; Chaudat, T.; Atanasiu, G.M. Preliminary numerical analysis of a reinforced
concrete mock up: Effects of thermal breakers and shaking table. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012.
33. Juster-Lermitte, S.; Chaudat, T.; Zenter, I.; Courtois, A. Project SMART 2008; SEMT/EMSI/RT/09-011A;
French Alternative Energies and Atomic Commission: Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 2009.
34. Richard, B.; Ragueneau, F. Nonlinear analysis of a reinforced concrete mock-up under seismic
loading. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal,
24–28 September 2012.
35. Richard, B.; Ragueneau, F. Continuum damage mechanics based model for quasi brittle materials subjected
to cyclic loadings: Formulation, numerical implementation and applications. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2013, 98,
383–406. [CrossRef]
36. Paulay, T. Some design principles relevant to torsional phenomena in ductile buildings. J. Earthq. Eng. 2001,
5, 273–308. [CrossRef]
37. Rutenberg, A. EAEE Task Group (TG) 8: Behaviour of irregular and complex structures, asymmetric
structures–Progress since 1998. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
London, UK, 9–13 September 2002. Paper No. 832.
38. Stathopoulos, K.G.; Anagnostopoulos, S.A. Inelastic earthquake induced torsion in buildings: Results
and conclusions from realistic models. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, London, UK, 9–13 September 2002.
39. Garcia, O.; Islas, A.; Ayala, A.G. Effect of the in-plan distribution of strength on the non-linear seismic
response of torsionally coupled buildings. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August 2004.
40. Magliulo, G.; Maddaloni, G.; Petrone, C. Influence of earthquake direction on the seismic response of
irregular plan RC frame buildings. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2014, 13, 243–256. [CrossRef]
41. Llera, J.C.D.L.; Chopra, A.K. Inelastic behavior of asymmetric multistory buildings. J. Struct. Eng. 1996, 122,
597–606. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Seismic Response of A Three-Dimensional Asymmetric Multi-Storey Reinforced Concrete Structure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Response of A Three-Dimensional Asymmetric Multi-Storey Reinforced Concrete Structure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Seismic Response of A Three-Dimensional Asymmetric Multi-Storey Reinforced Concrete Structure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 479; doi:10.3390/app8040479 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23

(a) Plan view (b) Elevation view

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

C.G Table Point C

(a) Concrete (b) Rebar

Figure 6. Strain–stress curves for concrete and steel reinforcement.

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW

In Equations (6)–(8), 𝑓̅𝑡 and 𝑓𝑏𝑐

Figure 7. Deviatoric section of the Willam–Warnke failure surface.

3.3. Finite Element

3.4. Local Test

Table 3. Configuration of the local test. RVE: representative volume element.

(a) Boundary condition (b) Cyclic excitation

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 23

(a) Boundary condition (b) Cyclic excitation

(a) rc.1 (b) rc.2

3.5. Finite Element Models of Structural Components

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23

Table 4. Geometrical characteristics of the finite element (FE) model.

(a) Full structural model (b) Modeling of rebar

(c) Slab connected to the column (d) Slab supported by beams

Figure 14. Finite element modeling of the SMART 2013 RC structure.

4. Validation of the Finite Element Model

4.1. Modal Analysis

(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3

(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3

(a) Mode 1 (b) Mode 2 (c) Mode 3

4.2. Seismic Analysis to Low-Intensity Ground Motions

Table 6. Modal damping ratios obtained by experiments.

Mode Frequency, ! (Hz) Modal Damping Ratio, ı

Displacement, ux (mm) Acceleration, ax (m/s2 )

(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23

(a) Displacement, ux (b) Acceleration, ax

(a) Displacement, ux (b) Acceleration, ax

(c) Displacement, uy (d) Acceleration, ay

(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

(a) Displacement (b) Acceleration

Absolute Maximum Acceleration, ax

(a) Wall V04 (b) Wall V02

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23

(a) First floor (b) Second floor (c) Third floor

(a) First floor (b) Second floor (c) Third floor

(a) Numerical result (b) Experimental result

(a) Plan view (b) Finite element model

(a) 1st floor (b) 2nd floor (c) 3rd floor

(a) 1st floor (b) 2nd floor (c) 3rd floor

(a) First floor (b) Second floor

(c) Third floor

(a) First floor (b) Second floor