Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 1457–1477 | Cite as

Experimental and analytical studies on the response of 1/4-scale models of freestanding laboratory equipment subjected to strong earthquake shaking

Open Access
Original Research Paper

Abstract

This paper investigates the seismic response of freestanding equipment when subjected to strong earthquake motions (2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years). A two-step approach is followed because the displacement limitations of the shake table do not permit full-scale experiments. First, shake table tests are conducted on quarter-scale wooden block models of the equipment. The results are used to validate the commercially available dynamic simulation software Working Model 2D. Working Model is then used to compute the response of the full-scale freestanding equipment when subjected to strong, 2% in 50 years hazard motions. The response is dominated by sliding, with sliding displacements reaching up to 70 cm. A physically motivated dimensionless intensity measure and the associated engineering demand parameter are identified with the help of dimensional analysis, and the results of the numerical simulations are used to obtain a relationship between the two that leads to ready-to-use fragility curves.

Keywords

Laboratory equipment Nonstructural components Scaling Rocking Sliding Fragility curves 

Notes

Acknowledgments

From the Earthquake Simulator Laboratory at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center, UC Berkeley, where the shake table experiments were conducted, we greatly appreciate the technical assistance of Don Clyde,Wes Neighbour, and David Maclam.We would also like to thank our PEER colleagues for their collaboration.We are very grateful for their continual feedback throughout the course of this study. This work was supported primarily by the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science Foundation under award number EEC-9701568 through the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Barenblatt GI (1996) Scaling, self-similarity, and intermediate asymptotics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Comerio MC (ed) (2005) PEER testbed study on a laboratory building: exercising seismic performance assessment. Report No. PEER 2005-12, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Constantinou MC, Tsopelas P, Kim YS, Okamoto S (1993) NCEER-Taisei Corporation research program on sliding seismic isolation systems for bridges: experimental and analytical study of a friction pendulum system (FPS). Technical Report NCEER-93-0020, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. State University of New York at Buffalo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Crow, EL, Shimizu, K (eds) (1988) Lognormal distributions. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Daniel WW (1990) Applied nonparametric statistics, 2nd edn. PWS-KENT, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Hutchinson TC, Chaudhuri SR (2006) Bench-shelf system dynamic characteristics and their effects on equipment and contents. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(13): 1631–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Konstantinidis D, Makris N (2005a) Seismic response analysis of multidrum classical columns. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(10): 1243–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Konstantinidis D, Makris N (2005b) Experimental and analytical studies on the seismic response of freestanding and anchored laboratory equipment. Report No. PEER 2005-07, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. Konstantinidis D, Makris N (2009) Experimental and analytical studies on the response of freestanding laboratory equipment to earthquake shaking. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(6): 827–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee TH, Mosalam KM (2005) Seismic demand sensitivity of reinforced concrete shear-wall building using FOSM method. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(14): 1719–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lopez Garcia D, Soong TT (2003a) Sliding fragility of block-type non-structural components. Part 1: unrestrained components. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(1): 111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lopez Garcia D, Soong TT (2003b) Sliding fragility of block-type non-structural components. Part 2: restrained components. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(1): 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Makris N (1997) Rigidity-plasticity-viscosity: can electrorheological dampers protect base-isolated structures from near-source ground motions? Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(5): 571–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Makris N, Black CJ (2003) Dimensional analysis of inelastic structures subjected to near-fault ground motions. Report No. EERC 2003-05, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Makris N, Black CJ (2004) Dimensional analysis of rigid-plastic and elastoplastic structures under pulse-type excitations. J Eng Mech (ASCE) 130(9): 1006–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Makris N, Chang SP (2000) Response of damped oscillators to cycloidal pulses. J Eng Mech (ASCE) 126(2): 123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Makris N, Konstantinidis D (2003a) The rocking spectrum and the limitations of practical design methodologies. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(2): 265–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Makris N, Konstantinidis D (2003b) The rocking spectrum, existing design guidelines, and a scale invariance. In: Proceedings of the fédération internationale du Béton symposium, Athens, 6–9 May 2003Google Scholar
  19. Makris N, Psychogios T (2006) Dimensional response analysis of yielding structures with first-mode dominated response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(10): 1203–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Makris N, Roussos Y (2000) Rocking response of rigid blocks under near-source ground motions. Géotechnique 50(3): 243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MATLAB (2002) High-performance language software for technical computing. TheMathWorks, Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
  22. Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS (2003) A mathematical representation of near-fault ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3): 1099–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mokha A, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn AM (1988) Teflon bearings in aseismic base isolation: experimental studies and mathematical modeling. Technical Report NCEER-88-0038, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. State University of New York at Buffalo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Fifth rankine lecture. Géotechnique 15: 139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Porter KA (2003) An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering (ICASP9), San Francisco 6–9 July 2003Google Scholar
  26. Scheaffer RL, McClave JT (1995) Probability and statistics for engineers, 4th edn. Duxbury Press, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  27. Shao Y, Tung CC (1999) Seismic response of unanchored bodies. Earthq Spectra 15(3): 523–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Somerville PG (2001) Ground motion time histories for the UC Lab building. URS Corporation, PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  29. Wen YK (1975) Approximate method for nonlinear random vibration. J Eng Mech Div (ASCE) 101(EM4): 389–401Google Scholar
  30. Wen YK (1976) Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. J Eng Mech Div (ASCE) 102(EM2): 249–263Google Scholar
  31. Working Model (2000) User’s manual. MSC. Software Corporation, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  32. Yim CS, Chopra AK, Penzien J (1980) Rocking response of rigid blocks to earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 8(6): 565–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Younis C, Tadjbakhsh G (1984) Response of sliding rigid structure to base excitation. J Eng Mech (ASCE) 110(3): 417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang J, Makris N (2001) Rocking response of free-standing blocks under cycloidal pulses. J Eng Mech (ASCE) 127(5): 473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Richmond Field StationUniversity of CaliforniaRichmondUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  4. 4.Earthquake Engineering Research CenterUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations