Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 761–772 | Cite as

Substructure hybrid testing of reinforced concrete shear wall structure using a domain overlapping technique

  • Yu Zhang
  • Peng Pan
  • Runhua Gong
  • Tao Wang
  • Weichen Xue
Special Section: State-of-the-Art of Hybrid Testing Method


An online hybrid test was carried out on a 40-story 120-m high concrete shear wall structure. The structure was divided into two substructures whereby a physical model of the bottom three stories was tested in the laboratory and the upper 37 stories were simulated numerically using ABAQUS. An overlapping domain method was employed for the bottom three stories to ensure the validity of the boundary conditions of the superstructure. Mixed control was adopted in the test. Displacement control was used to apply the horizontal displacement, while two controlled force actuators were applied to simulate the overturning moment, which is very large and cannot be ignored in the substructure hybrid test of high-rise buildings. A series of tests with earthquake sources of sequentially increasing intensities were carried out. The test results indicate that the proposed hybrid test method is a solution to reproduce the seismic response of high-rise concrete shear wall buildings. The seismic performance of the tested precast high-rise building satisfies the requirements of the Chinese seismic design code.


hybrid test substructure technique domain overlapping method precast concrete building 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The financial supports from the state key research project in 13th Five-Year under Grant No. 2016YFC0701901, the Beijing Science and Technology Program under grant no. Z161100001216015, and the Natural Science Foundation of China under grants nos. 51422809 and 51778342 are gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Chung YL, Nagae T, Hitaka T and Nakashima M (2010), “Seismic Resistance Capacity of High-rise Buildings Subjected to Long-period Ground Motions: E-defense Shaking Table Test,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 136(6): 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Civil and Structural Groups of Tsinghua University, Xinan Jiaotong University, Beijing Jiaotong University (2008), “Analysis on Seismic Damage of Buildings in the Wenchuan Earthquake,” Journal of Building Structures, 29(4): 1–9. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  3. Del Carpio R, Mosqueda G and Lignos G (2016), “Seismic Performance of a Steel Moment Frame Subassembly Tested from the Onset of Damage Through Collapse,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 45(10): 1563–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Del Carpio Ramos M, Mosqueda G and Hashemi MJ (2015), “Large-scale Hybrid Simulation of a Steel Moment Frame Building Structure Through Collapse,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(1): 04015086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hall John FWT and Somers P (1994), “Northridge Earthquake, January 17, 1994,” Preliminary Reconnaissance Report.Google Scholar
  6. Hashemi MJ and Mosqueda G (2014), “Innovative Substructuring Technique for Hybrid Simulation of Multi-story Building Through Collapse,” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn, 43(14): 2059–2074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Junemann R, La Llera JC, Hube MA, Vasquez J and Chacon MF (2016), “Study of the Damage of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls During the 2010 Chile Earthquake: Study of Damage of RC Shear Walls during the 2010 Chile Earthquake,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 45(10): 1621–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kwon O, Elnashai AS and Spencer BF (2008), “A Framework for Distributed Analytical and Hybrid Simulations,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 30(3): 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mahin SA and Shing PSB (1985), “Pseudodynamic Method for Seismic Testing,” Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(7): 1482–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mosqueda G and Ahmadizadeh M (2010), “Iterative Implicit Integration Procedure for Hybrid Simulation of Large Nonlinear Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 40(9): 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nakashima M (2001), “Development, Potential, and Limitations of Real-time Online (Pseudo-dynamic) testing,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 359: 1851–1867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nakashima M and Masaoka N (1999), “Real-time online Test for MDOF Systems,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 28(4): 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pan P, Nakashima M and Tomofuji H (2005), “Online Test Using Displacement–force Mixed Control,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 34(8): 869–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pan P, Wang T and Nakashima M (2015), Development of Online Hybrid Testing: Theory and Applications to Structural Engineering, Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Pan P, Tomofuji H, Wang T, Nakashima M, Ohsaki M and Mosalam KM (2006), “Development of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Internet Online Hybrid Test System,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35(7): 867–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Park DU, Yun CB, Lee JW, et al. (2005), “On-line Pseudodynamic Network Testing on Base-isolated Bridges Using Internet and Wireless Internet,” Experimental Mechanics, 45(4): 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Qiu FW (2004), “Progress in Seismic Test Methods for Structures,” China Civil Engineering Journal, 37(10): 19–27. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Stavridis A and Shing PB (2010), “Hybrid Testing and Modeling of a Suspended Zipper Steel Frame,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39(2): 187–209.Google Scholar
  19. Subedi NK, Marsono AK and Aguda G (1999), “Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Coupled Shear Wall Structures,” Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 8(2): 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tada M and Pan P (2007), “A Modified Operator Splitting (OS) Method for Collaborative Structural Analysis (CSA),” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 72: 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Takahashi Y and Fenves GL (2006), “Software Framework for Distributed Experimental–computational Simulation of Structural Systems,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35: 267–291. doi: 10.1002/eqe.518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Watanabe E, Sugiura K, Nagata K and Kitane Y (1998), “Performances and Damages to Steel Structures During the 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu Earthquake,” Engineering Structures, 20(4): 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang T, Mosqueda G, Jacobsen A, et al. (2012), “Performance Evaluation of a Distributed Hybrid Test Framework to Reproduce the Collapse Behavior of a Structure,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(2): 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Zhang
    • 1
  • Peng Pan
    • 2
  • Runhua Gong
    • 3
  • Tao Wang
    • 1
  • Weichen Xue
    • 4
  1. 1.Key laborary of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering vibration, Institute of Engineering MechanicsChina Earthquake AdministrationYanjiao, Sanhe, HebeiP. R. China
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China EducationTsinghua UniversityBeijingP. R. China
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingP. R. China
  4. 4.Building Engineering DepartmentTongji UniversityShanghaiP. R. China

Personalised recommendations