Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of the 2015 full-scale ten-story RC test Structure using ASCE/SEI 41

  • S.I. : Ten-story RC Full-scale Buildings
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents application of ASCE/SEI 41–17 nonlinear seismic analysis and evaluation procedures to the 10-story reinforced concrete building tested on the E-Defense shake table in December 2015. Primary lateral load resisting system of the building was reinforced concrete frame in the longitudinal direction and RC wall in the transverse direction. Analytical models were developed in OpenSees with nonlinear wall, beam, and column elements, as well as with linear elastic and two types of nonlinear beam-column joint elements: (1) modeling parameters that follow ASCE/SEI 41–17 recommendations, and (2) modeling parameters derived using data from relevant experimental results. Computed responses for the analytical models of the building and predicted damage are compared with measured responses and observed damage for strong motion records from 50 and 100% Kobe earthquake excitations. Results comparisons indicate that the ASCE/SEI 41–17 nonlinear dynamic evaluation procedures are overall able to reasonably identify the general damage extent and distribution for both frame and wall directions. Analysis results further suggest that the beam-column joint modeling parameters in ASCE/SEI 41–17 for nonlinear dynamic procedures likely overestimate the rate of strength loss with increasing deformation demands revealing a potential need for review and update of the joint shear strength and nonlinear modeling parameters and acceptance criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • ACI (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, ACI 318–14. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  • ACI (2017) Standard requirements for seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete buildings and commentary, ACI CODE-369.1-17. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  • Architectural Institute of Japan. (2018) Design guidelines for earthquake resistant reinforced concrete

  • ASCE, SEI 41 (2017) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings (ASCE/SEI 41–17). American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  • ASCE, SEI 7–16 (2017) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  • Belarbi A, Hsu TC (1994) Constitutive laws of concrete in tension and reinforcing bars stiffened by concrete. ACI Struct J 91(4):465–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Buniya M, Simpson B, Macedo J, Vergaray L, Barbosa A (2020) Collapse fragility function development using conditional scenario spectra: application to a multi-story reinforced concrete shear wall. In: Proceedings of 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE, Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Celik OC, Ellingwood BR (2008) Modeling beam-column joints in fragility assessment of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames. J Earthquake Eng 12(3):357–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Computers and Inc. Structures (2018) PERFORM 3D, user guide v4, non-linear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Gomez CA (2020) “Nonlinear dynamic analysis of a ten-story reinforced concrete building,”, MS Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, pp: 60

  • Kajiwara K, Tosauchi Y, Sato E, et al (2015) Three-dimensional shaking table test of a 10-story reinforced concrete building on the E-Defense, part1: overview and specimen design of the base slip and base fixed tests”. In: 16th world conference on earthquake, 16WCEE 4012 (2017)

  • Kolozvari K, Anaraki K, Orakcal K, Wallace JW (2021) “Three-dimensional model for nonlinear analysis of slender flanged reinforced concrete walls. Eng Struct 236(112105):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna F (2011) OpenSEES: a framework for earthquake engineering simulation. Comput Sci Eng 13(4):58–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moehle J (2015) Seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings. McGraw-Hill education, Vol. 31.McGraw-Hill Education. https://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/content/book/9780071839440

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagae T, Ghannoum WM, Kwon J, Tahara K, Fukuyama K, Matsumori T, Shiohara H, Kabeyasawa T, Kono S, Nishiyama M (2015) Design implications of large-scale shake-table test on four-story reinforced concrete building. ACI Struct J 112(2):135

    Google Scholar 

  • NIST, 2009, Research Required to Support Full Implementation of Performance-Based Seismic Design, NIST GCR 09–917–02, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

  • NIST, 2022, Benchmarking evaluation methodologies for existing reinforced concrete buildings, NIST GCR 22–917–50, prepared by applied technology council. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.22-917-50

  • Razvi S, Saatcioglu M (1999) Confinement model for high strength concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 125(3):281–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato E, Tosauchi Y, Fukuyama K, et al. (2015) Three-dimensional shaking table test of a 10-story reinforced concrete building on the E-Defense, Part2: specimen fabrication and construction, test procedure, and instrumentation program”. In: 16th world conference on earthquake, 16WCEE 4007 (2017)

  • Shiohara H, Sho H, Kusuhara F, 2013, “Behavior at large deformation of R/C interior beam-column joints of joint yielding,” Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, pp. 723–724. (In Japanese)

  • Sattar S (2018) Evaluating the consistency between prescriptive and performance-based seismic design approaches for reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Eng Struct 174:919–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tosauchi Y, Sato E, Fukuyama K, et al. (2015) Three-dimensional shaking table test of a 10-story reinforced concrete building on the E-Defense, Part3: base slip and base fixed test results”. In: 16th world conference on earthquake, 16WCEE 4016 (2017)

  • Unal ME, Kolozvari K, Wallace JW, Kajiwara K, Kang J-D, Tosauchi Y, Sata E, Kabeyasawa T, Shiohara H, Nagae T, Kabeyasawa T, (2020) Assessment of the 2015 and 2018 E-defense 10-story reinforced concrete buildings based on ACI 318–19 and ASCE/SEI 7–16, Draft final report, UCLA structural/earthquake engineering research laboratory report SEERL 2020/2

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by NIST Contract No. 1333ND19PNB730832 under the ATC-134-1 project. The authors would like to thank to all contributing members of the ATC-134-1 project, especially Russell Berkowitz and Dustin Cook for their valuable feedback. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors.

Funding

This work was supported by funding from National Institute of Standards and Technology (Grant No. 1333ND19PNB730832) awarded to Prof. John Wallace and UCLA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. California State University, Fullerton, USA

    Kristijan Kolozvari

  2. University of California, Los Angeles, USA

    Saman Abdullah & John Wallace

  3. NIED, Miki, Japan

    Koichi Kajiwara

  4. University of Sulaimani, Sulaymaniyah, Iraq

    Saman Abdullah

Authors
  1. Kristijan Kolozvari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saman Abdullah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Wallace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Koichi Kajiwara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The modeling and analysis were performed by KK and SA in collaboration with John Wallace. The test and data collection were performed by KK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by KK, SA and JW. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristijan Kolozvari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kolozvari, K., Abdullah, S., Wallace, J. et al. Assessment of the 2015 full-scale ten-story RC test Structure using ASCE/SEI 41. Bull Earthquake Eng 21, 6623–6646 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01657-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01657-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation