Mechanisms to limit higher mode effects in a controlled rocking

steel frame. 1: Concept, modelling, and low-amplitude shake

table testing
Lydell Wiebe
1
, Constantin Christopoulos
1,
*
,
, Robert Tremblay
2
and Martin Leclerc
2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada
2
Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal, Montral QC, Canada
SUMMARY
Controlled rocking steel frames have been proposed as an efcient way to avoid the structural damage and
residual deformations that are expected in conventional seismic force resisting systems. Although the base
rocking response is intended to limit the force demands, higher mode effects can amplify member design
forces, reducing the viability of the system. This paper suggests that seismic forces may be limited more ef-
fectively by providing multiple force-limiting mechanisms. Two techniques are proposed: detailing one or
more rocking joints above the base rocking joint and providing a self-centring energy dissipative (SCED)
brace at one or more levels. These concepts are applied to the design of an eight-storey prototype structure
and a shake table model at 30% scale. A simple numerical model that was used as a design tool is in good
agreement with frequency characterization and low-amplitude seismic tests of the shake table model, particu-
larly when multiple force-limiting mechanisms are active. These results suggest that the proposed mechanisms
can enable better capacity design by reducing the variability of peak seismic force demands without causing
excessive displacements. Similar results are expected for other systems that rely on a single location of concen-
trated nonlinearity to limit peak seismic loads. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 11 February 2012; Revised 5 July 2012; Accepted 24 August 2012
KEY WORDS: controlled rocking steel frames; self-centring systems; higher mode effects; multiple force-
limiting mechanisms; capacity design; shake table testing
1. INTRODUCTION
Conventional structures designed to current seismic codes are intended to protect life during a design
level event, yet without an explicit check on structural damage or residual deformations, both are likely
following such an event [1]. The associated repair costs may be so great that it is more economical to
demolish and rebuild the structure than to repair it [2, 3], and the downtime associated with repair or
replacement may also be a signicant cost to building owners and to society at large.
In order to economically improve the seismic performance of structures, a new generation of
self-centring systems is being developed. One such system is a controlled rocking steel frame.
Rocking was recognized by Housner [4] as having enabled some slender structures to survive the
1960 Chile earthquake, and the concept was subsequently proposed for the design of concrete bridge
piers [5] and steel frames [6, 7]. Controlled rocking systems for precast concrete structures were
studied as part of the PRESSS program in the 1990s [8]. Recent studies of controlled rocking steel
frames include those by Midorikawa et al. [9], Roke et al. [10], Wiebe et al. [11], Pollino and
*Correspondence to: Constantin Christopoulos, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St. George
Street, Toronto, M5S 1A4, Canada.

Email: c.christopoulos@utoronto.ca
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2259
Bruneau [12], Tremblay et al. [13], Eatherton et al. [14], and Ma et al. [15]. Controlled rocking steel
frames have also been used as the seismic force resisting systems for real buildings that have been
constructed [16, 17].
In a controlled rocking system, the base of each column is allowed to lift off its foundation rather
than develop tension. The cyclic response of a generic controlled rocking system is shown in
Figure 1. Post-tensioning is often provided to control the load that causes rocking, as well as to
provide a positive stiffness after uplift that is proportional to the area of post-tensioning. In order to
limit the peak response, a source of energy dissipation that is engaged by the rocking motion is
typically also used. The ag-shaped hysteresis that is typical of controlled rocking systems (Figure 1
(f)) can be proportioned to result in similar peak response to more conventional structural
congurations, while also avoiding structural damage and residual deformations [18].
Because the rocking response acts as the mechanism that limits seismic forces, the elements of a
controlled rocking system are normally intended to respond entirely in their elastic range. Previous
studies [19, 20] have demonstrated that the higher modes contribute signicantly to the force
demands of controlled rocking frame members. Thus, higher mode effects could impair the
performance of controlled rocking steel frames by causing unintentional yielding of the frame
members, or higher mode effects could limit the economic viability of the system because very large
elastic design forces are required to account for these effects in capacity design.
This paper discusses the source of higher mode effects and proposes two ways that they might
be controlled. These higher mode mitigation strategies are then applied to an example design of an
eight-storey controlled rocking steel frame located in Vancouver, Canada. The prototype frame was
scaled to a 30% model that was built and tested on a shake table. Frequency characterization tests,
as well as low-amplitude seismic tests, conrmed that the behaviour of the experimental system was
consistent with the design intent and with the numerical model that was used during design. The
response of the shake table model to large-amplitude seismic testing is discussed in a companion paper [21].
2. HIGHER MODE EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
When capacity designing a structure, the designer assumes a collapse mechanism that limits the forces
throughout that structure. In order to determine the forces in the structure when the mechanism forms, a
distribution of loads must be assumed, often using either an equivalent lateral force procedure or a
response spectrum analysis. However, this assumed distribution may not be valid in the inelastic
range of response: beginning with Blakeley et al. [22], a number of researchers have identied that
the seismic forces for a structure in the nonlinear range can signicantly exceed the capacity design
forces determined by applying this lateral load distribution until the collapse mechanism forms, even
after accounting for overstrength of the mechanism. Much of this research has focused on reinforced
concrete shear walls, where the designed collapse mechanism is a plastic hinge at the base of the
wall. An extensive list of references on this work is provided by Rutenberg [23], who notes that
structures with longer initial periods and greater ductility demand tend to be more inuenced by the
higher modes.
post-tensioning
weight
lateral
load
vertical
reaction
energy
dissipation
slips/yields
in tension
energy
dissipation
slips/yields
in compression
contact at
column base
(a)
post-tensioning
elongates
Lateral
Force
Roof
Displacement
(symmetric)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) (e) (d) (c) (b)
Figure 1. Schematic pushpull response of rocking frame: (a) at rest; (b) incipient rocking; (c) maximum
displacement; (d) gap begins to close; (e) gap fully closed; and (f) resulting ag-shaped hysteresis.
L. WIEBE ET AL.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
This apparent amplication of forces can be understood by considering Figure 2, which shows the
properties of the rst three modes of a xed-base elastic exural cantilever with uniform stiffness and
mass. Superimposed are the rst three modes of a pinned-base cantilever, which can be computed even
though such a structure is unstable. The properties of these modes were rst derived by Young and
Felgar [24]. As a plastic hinge forms and unloads at the base of a reinforced concrete shear wall, the
base condition shifts between a xed condition and a pinned condition. Considering the idealized
case of no post-yield stiffness, after forming a base hinge, no further forces could be applied that
would increase the moment at the base. However, the modes of the pinned-base structure could still
be excited because they do not add to the base moment and because there is no limit on the shear
force that can be transferred at the base. Whereas the rst mode of the pinned-base structure is the
rigid body rotation of the cantilever about its base, which is associated with zero force, the higher
modes of the pinned-base structure appear similar to those of the xed-base structure. In particular,
the higher modes of the pinned-base structure include moments above the base of the structure, as
well as shears over the full height. Thus, the formation of a plastic hinge may be thought of as
limiting the forces in the rst mode while modifying, but not eliminating, the higher modes. Paulay
and Priestley [25] have even suggested that because the higher mode shapes are similar regardless of
the base condition, a plastic hinge may not signicantly affect the response in those modes. If forces
develop after a base hinge forms because of the excitation of the higher modes, then the structural
forces have not been effectively limited by forming a mechanism. Instead, the peak forces increase
with increasing earthquake intensity, and the relative contribution of the higher modes also increases.
Like reinforced concrete shear walls, controlled rocking steel frames rely on a moment-limiting
mechanism at the base to cap the seismic forces. Therefore, like reinforced concrete shear walls,
they are susceptible to higher mode force amplication. The maximum possible base moment in a
controlled rocking frame can be calculated using the contributions of weight acting on the frame,
post-tensioning, and energy dissipation. In nonlinear time-history analyses of two-storey, four-
storey, and six-storey controlled rocking steel frames, Tremblay et al. [13] found that rocking did
not limit the storey shear demand as effectively as it controlled the base overturning moment. As a
result, the rst-storey brace forces were larger than the capacity design forces for a conventional
braced frame, especially as the building height increased. Similarly, Roke et al. [19] have shown
through nonlinear time-history analysis that the force demands on the braces of a six-storey
controlled rocking frame at the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) level can be three or more times
larger than would be expected by applying a rst-mode distribution of lateral forces up to the
maximum possible base moment. For a different six-storey controlled rocking frame, Eatherton and
Hajjar [20] found that the median force in the rst-storey brace at the DBE level was more than
twice the force determined by distributing the design base shear according to an inverted triangular
force distribution, and the median force in that brace at the maximum considered earthquake (MCE)
level was more than three times the design force. As an alternative to designing for such large
amplications of design forces, this paper proposes two higher mode mitigation techniques to
potentially reduce those forces.
Mode 3
Mode 1
Mode 2
Displacement Force Shear Moment
Fixed-Base Cantilever Pinned-Base Cantilever
Figure 2. Properties of the rst three modes for a xed-base and a pinned-base cantilever.
MECHANISMS TO LIMIT HIGHER MODE EFFECTS: CONCEPT, LOW-AMPLITUDE TESTS
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
2.1. Mechanism 1: multiple rocking sections
A base rocking joint controls the overturning moments at the base by reducing the lateral stiffness of
the system after reaching the rocking load, as shown schematically in Figure 3(a) for the idealized
case of zero stiffness after rocking. In the same way, it is suggested that the overturning moments
near mid-height of the frame could be reduced by providing an additional joint at this location, as
shown schematically in Figure 3(b). Just as allowing rocking at the base is not expected to
signicantly increase the peak displacements because of the equal displacement assumption [26] and
the similarity between peak displacements for bilinear plastic systems and systems with ag-shaped
hystereses [18], a second rocking joint is also not expected to signicantly increase the peak
displacements. Furthermore, because the storey shear at a given instant is equal to the slope of the
overturning moment diagram, the reduction in the slope of the moment envelope that is shown
schematically in Figure 3(b) may also result in a commensurate reduction in the shear force envelope.
A previous study of this proposal for rocking concrete walls showed that an upper rocking joint was
indeed effective in reducing the bending moment envelope near the upper joint and the peak shears
throughout the structure, with little or no increase in peak displacement demand [27]. That study
also suggested that the upper joint(s) would be most effective in mitigating the higher modes if all
joints were designed to open at about the same lateral load, applied according to a rst-mode
distribution [28]. An upper rocking joint is analogous to the dual plastic hinge concept that has been
proposed for reinforced concrete walls [29, 27], and a similar concept was also proposed to mitigate
higher mode effects in exural braced frames that use buckling restrained braces as vertical
members [30].
2.2. Mechanism 2: shear control brace
Whereas the rst proposed higher mode mitigation mechanism was based on examining the
overturning moment envelope, the second proposed mechanism is based on examining the shear
force envelope. As shown schematically in Figure 3(a), the base shear is not directly limited in a
controlled rocking system but can increase with increasing earthquake intensity. Therefore, in order
to better control the shears that develop at the base because of the higher modes, a nonlinear brace
is proposed at the rst level of the frame, as shown in Figure 3(b). A nonlinear brace at only one
level of a conventional frame would result in a soft storey at that location, possibly causing
excessive deformation demand on that storey. However, the base rocking mechanism can provide
the required deformation capacity for the system, while the rst-storey brace would only be needed
to limit the shears caused by the modes at higher frequencies, which are associated with much less
displacement demand. Just as base isolation acts to reduce all forces throughout a structure, it was
anticipated that limiting the shear force envelope by using a nonlinear brace would also reduce the
overturning moment envelope. Furthermore, limiting the peak storey shears was also expected to
limit the peak oor accelerations.
In order to limit the base shear while providing a self-centring characteristic, a self-centring energy
dissipative (SCED) brace [31] is proposed at the rst level. In keeping with the suggestion that the
rocking load(s) for multiple rocking sections should be chosen such that all joints open at the same
ii) brace
controls shear
i) joint controls
moment
mode 1 dominates
at low intensities
increasing
intensity
increasing
intensity
overturning
moment
storey shear overturning
moment
storey shear
a) without higher mode mitigation:
height
height
ii) nonlinear
brace
i) additional
rocking joint
rocking at
base only
b) with higher mode mitigation:
Figure 3. Concept of higher mode mitigation mechanisms: (a) system and response without higher mode
mitigation and (b) system and response with higher mode mitigation.
L. WIEBE ET AL.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
lateral load in the rst mode [28], the initial proposal was to design the SCED brace to activate at that
same lateral load. Preliminary numerical analyses of the prototype structure that is considered in this
paper suggested that this would be effective.
2.3. Multiple higher mode mitigation mechanisms
For structures with severe higher mode effects, the two proposed strategies could be combined, and
they could also be extended to more than two rocking joints or to more than one nonlinear brace.
For the prototype structure that is considered in this paper, preliminary analysis showed that
although the combination of the two techniques would be effective, little benet would be gained by
adding further higher mode mitigation.
3. DESIGN OF PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE
The proposed higher mode mitigation techniques were applied to a prototype design for an eight-storey
ofce building in Vancouver, BC. As shown in Figure 4(a), the structure had a gross area of 729 m
2
per
oor, with 9 m9 m (30 ft 30 ft) typical bays. The height of the rst storey was 4.6 m (15
0
1
00
), and all
other storeys were 3.75 m (12
0
4
00
) tall. The seismic weight was calculated using a dead load of 4.2 kPa
(88 psf). Although the seismic force resisting system could have been proportioned using only two
frames in each direction, four frames were chosen so that the seismic mass associated with each
frame could be modelled in the laboratory. The foundation conditions of the prototype structure are
classied as site class C according to both the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) [32] and
ASCE 7-05 [33]. The NBCC design spectrum, which is based on a 2% probability of exceedance in
50 years, is given for this location and the corresponding soil site class in Figure 4(b).
The designer of a rocking frame can select the post-uplift stiffness without affecting the rocking load
by adjusting the post-tensioning that is provided. For a given rocking load, it is expected that changing
the post-uplift stiffness may signicantly inuence the seismic response. Therefore, the design did not
assume a particular force reduction factor, as would be done using a methodology similar to the one
prescribed in the 2005 NBCC or ASCE 7-05. Instead, the design was conducted to achieve a target
base shear at a design roof drift of 2.0%. This target base shear was selected with reference to a
buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF).
3.1. Reference buckling restrained braced frame
The reference BRBF was designed according to the modal response spectrum method of the NBCC with a
force reduction factor of R
d
R
o
=4.8 [34]. The resulting design base shear was 5.7%of the total weight of the
structure. The storey shears were then used to select the yield strength of the buckling restrained braces at
every level. The beams and columns were capacity designed according to the provisions of the specication.
The BRBF was modelled using OpenSees [35] with continuous columns and pinned connections
everywhere else. Only dead load was considered. The brace stiffnesses were assigned by assuming
an effective area of 1.4 times the area of the steel core (refer to [36]). All yielding elements were
modelled with a GiuffrMenegottoPinto steel material model (Steel02) with default parameters to
control the transition between elastic and plastic branches. A pushover analysis was conducted using
the lateral force distribution from the code equivalent static force procedure [32]. From the results in
Figure 5, the base shear at 2.0% roof displacement is 1.18 times the design base shear.
3 @ 9m
= 27m
3 @ 9m = 27m
considered seismic
force resisting system
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
period (s)
spectral
acceleration
(g)
(b) (a)
Vancouver,
2%/50yrs
Figure 4. Properties of considered structure: (a) oor plan and (b) Vancouver design spectrum.
MECHANISMS TO LIMIT HIGHER MODE EFFECTS: CONCEPT, LOW-AMPLITUDE TESTS
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
3.2. Controlled rocking steel frame
The controlled rocking steel frame was designed to reach the same base moment as the BRBF at 2.0%
roof displacement. The designer can select what combination of energy dissipation, post-tensioning,
and gravity loads will be used to provide this moment. In this study, the gravity loads tributary to
the frame would have provided most of the design base moment, whereas it was desired to supply
about half of the design base moment through energy dissipation. Therefore, the rocking frame was
designed assuming that the gravity loads would be carried by adjacent frames. After assuming that
the self-weight of the frame would provide approximately 10% of the required base overturning
moment resistance at 2.0% roof displacement, the post-tensioning was designed to carry 50%, and
the energy dissipation was designed to carry 40%. It might have been more desirable to design the
controlled rocking frame to carry gravity load if the structure had greater seismic demand, or if the
frame were designed to be narrower or to have a smaller tributary area for gravity loads.
Next, the system was modelled using OpenSees [35], as discussed in more detail later in this paper.
Because this prototype was to be scaled to an experimental model that would be tested repeatedly, the
member sizes were adjusted on the basis of the results of nonlinear time-history analyses to ensure that
they would remain elastic beyond the maximum considered earthquake level. In the end, recognizing
that the demands were expected to be similar over the height of the frame because of higher mode
effects, the same members were used throughout in order to simplify the detailing and construction. This
resulted in a somewhat stiffer structure than would be expected in practice. Because higher mode effects
tend to be less signicant for structures with shorter rst-mode periods, this may result in an
underestimation of the importance of higher mode effects. However, these effects were still expected to
be large enough that the proposed mitigation techniques would substantially improve the response.
The pushover response of the rocking frame prototype design is compared with that of the BRBF in
Figure 5. The rocking frame pushover response could be tuned to be more like the BRBF, with reduced
base shear at drifts beyond 2.0%, by reducing the area of post-tensioning and increasing the initial
prestress. However, the rocking load as designed was sufcient to prevent uplift under service level
wind loads, and increasing the initial prestress would reduce the maximum roof drift that could be
attained before yielding the post-tensioning. During the preliminary modelling, a linear truss element
with an applied force was used to represent the post-tensioning. Later modelling used a yielding
element with an initial strain and a corotational formulation, which accounts for the contribution of
the horizontal component of the post-tensioning force to the base shear resistance. This contribution
becomes increasingly signicant at larger displacements, as shown in Figure 5.
3.3. Higher mode mitigation
The rst proposed higher mode mitigation method was implemented by detailing a second rocking
joint above the fourth storey of the structure. The rocking moment was determined by the sum of
contributions from the weight of the frame, the post-tensioning, and the energy dissipation. The rst
two of these were determined in the design of the base rocking joint, so only the energy dissipation
could be specied independently. As an initial design estimate, the energy dissipation at the upper
base shear
(fraction of
code design
base shear)
roof displacement / building height
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0%
BRBF
prototype design
prototype (corotational PT)
shake table m
odel
3.0% 2.0% 1.0%
Figure 5. Pushover response of buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF), controlled rocking frame
prototype design with linear and corotational PT elements, and controlled rocking frame shake table model.
L. WIEBE ET AL.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
joint was specied as half the value at the lower joint, so as to target a linear distribution of moments
from the base of the structure to the roof. This distribution had been shown by an earlier study [28] to
be a reasonable approximation to the rst-mode design prole that was discussed earlier. Preliminary
nonlinear time-history analyses suggested that the structural response was not very sensitive to the
amount of energy dissipation that was assigned at the upper joint.
The second means of mitigating the higher modes was limiting the shear at the rst level by providing a
nonlinear SCED brace [31]. For laboratory testing, the scaled SCED brace was to be modied from an
existing specimen [37]. Although it was possible to adjust the activation load of this brace, the stiffness
could not easily be changed. The brace was designed to activate at the base shear that would cause
rocking at the base when assuming a code-based lateral force distribution. Assuming that the brace
carried 100% of the shear at the rst-storey level, the target activation load was 325 kN for the full-scale
prototype structure. The brace was specied to provide the maximum possible energy dissipation while
remaining fully self-centring. Preliminary nonlinear time-history analyses supported these design decisions.
4. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTAL STRUCTURE
Figure 6 shows an overview of the experimental setup. Table I summarizes the parameters for scaling
the prototype design to 30% based on similitude relationships for articial mass simulation [38].
Within constructability constraints, the prototype stiffness was scaled by targeting the scaled cross-
sectional area of all members and the bending stiffness of the columns. Considering the available
tendon sizes, the post-tensioning consisted of two 12.7-mm (0.5-in) monostrands with an ultimate
strength of 184 kN (41 kips) each. This provided 36% more post-tensioning area than the targeted
value, so the initial prestress force was reduced as much as possible while providing a minimum
tension. As a result, the post-tensioning contributed 58% of the base overturning moment at 2.0%
roof displacement, while the energy dissipation provided 32% of the base moment. Figure 5 shows
that the pushover of the test structure, calculated with the adjusted numerical model that is described
later in this paper, scales to be about 40% stiffer than the prototype structure between the onset of
rocking and 2.0% roof displacement. This post-uplift stiffness is provided by the axial stiffness of
base rocking joint
concentrically braced frame
shake table
upper rocking joint
1M__: clamped shut
2M__: free to rock
__0V: conventional
__1V: SCED
seismic mass
simulation system
9.255m
(30-4)
2
.7
m
(8
-1
0
)
Figure 6. Controlled rocking steel frame shake table test setup.
Table I. Scaling factors.
Quantity Symbol Derivation Ratio
Length l
r
Selected 0.30
Modulus of elasticity E
r
Selected 1.00
Mass m
r
= 62.5 kN/[(4.2 kPa)(27 m)
2
/4] 0.0817
Horizontal acceleration a
r
E
r
l
2
r
=m
r
1.102
Vertical acceleration g
r
Gravity 1.00
Time t
r

m
r
=E
r
l
r
p
0.522
MECHANISMS TO LIMIT HIGHER MODE EFFECTS: CONCEPT, LOW-AMPLITUDE TESTS
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
the post-tensioning, so the stiffness ratio is close to 36%, with the remaining difference being due to the
difference in the axial stiffness of the columns. Considering the wide range of designs that are possible
with a controlled rocking system, the agreement between the scaled model and the initial design was
considered adequate and representative of a realistic design. The base shear and overturning moment
associated with rocking in Figure 5 were 23.7 kN and 159 kNm, respectively.
The post-tensioning was anchored at the bottom to a beam that was connected to the shake table
using threaded rods, allowing the post-tensioning to be adjusted without a stressing jack. The
tendons were initially stressed to about the maximum load that was expected during testing (40% of
ultimate) before lock-off at the required pre-tension level of 10.5 kN each (5.7% of ultimate). The
total post-tensioning force was adjusted after each change in conguration, but adjusting between
tests in each conguration was unnecessary.
The system that transferred the base shear to the foundation while allowing uplift was modelled after
one that had been used by Eatherton and Hajjar [20]. As shown in Figure 7, the rounded gusset plate
surface bore against a bumper that was adjusted to within 1 mm of the rocking frame. Energy
dissipation was provided by a clamped friction interface between a non-asbestos organic friction
material and stainless steel, which Kim and Christopoulos [39] found to deliver a stable and
repeatable hysteresis. Before each test, the clamping bolts were loosened and re-tightened using a
calibrated torque wrench. For tests in the 1M congurations (moment limited at one location), the
base plate of each column of the upper section was bolted to the cap plate on each column of the
lower section, while for tests in the 2M congurations (moment limited at two locations), the details
for the upper rocking joint were similar to those at the base of the structure.
Tests in the 0V congurations (shear limited at zero locations) were completed with a conventional
brace at the rst oor. For the tests in the 1V conguration (shear limited at one location), the
conventional brace was replaced with an existing SCED brace from a previous test program [37]
with connections modied to t the test frame. Before installation, the brace was recalibrated to
produce the hysteresis that is shown in Figure 8. The horizontal shear corresponding to the SCED
brace activation is 26 kN, which is within 10% of the base shear that caused rocking in the
analytical pushover response that is shown in Figure 5.
A mass simulation system that had been used in previous test programs [40] was adapted for this test
structure. This system uses pinned leaning columns between oors, thus including P effects. The
connection to the test frame used struts with spherical bearings at the ends to allow the struts to rotate as
the structure moved vertically. Load cells in the struts measured the inertia loads at every level.
Lateral supports were provided at four locations along the height of the test frame. Quasi-static testing
showed that the total friction between the specimen and the lateral support system was less than 5 kN.
5. NUMERICAL MODELLING FOR DESIGN
As part of the process of designing the experiment, the response of the shake table test specimen was
predicted using OpenSees [35]. As shown schematically in Figure 9, all beam and column elements
(b) (a)
brace
(spacing plates
between gusset and
connection plates)
side bumper
(angle bolted to
foundation plate) to simulate
flexible plate
shear connection
faced bearing
surface on bumper
column
friction energy
dissipation interface
beam
foundation plate
column base plate
rounded to allow rotation
gusset plate (through-plate
connection to column)
rounded surface
on gusset centred at
beam-column-brace
intersection
Figure 7. Bumper details: (a) schematic of bottom right joint and (b) photograph of bottom right joint.
L. WIEBE ET AL.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
were modelled using nonlinear bre elements with exible plates at the ends of the beams (refer to
Figure 7(a)). Prior to testing, a sensitivity analysis was conducted regarding whether the gusset
plates should be modelled using rigid offsets in the beams, columns, or both. The results in this
paper include rigid offsets for the beams only. The braces and the elements of the mass simulation
system were all modelled using elastic corotational truss elements. The post-tensioning was
modelled using an initial strain, and its response was entirely in the elastic range for all tests. Large
displacements were included in the analysis.
When the SCED brace was used at the rst-storey level (1V congurations), the self-centring
material property was used to approximate the response of that brace as shown in Figure 8. Gap
elements were used in combination with elastic-perfectly plastic elements to represent the uplift and
friction response at the rocking joints. An elastic element with negligible stiffness was used in
parallel with each gap element to provide numerical stability during uplift. When the upper joint
was not free to rock (1M congurations), the gap elements at the upper joint were replaced with
rigid links as shown in Figure 9. When the upper joint was free to rock (2M congurations), an
element with negligible axial stiffness and a high bending stiffness was used in parallel with each
gap element to transfer the shear.
Most of the mass came from the mass simulation system, which was lumped at one node per storey
level. The mass of each frame element was divided between its two end nodes. The stiffness of the
shake table actuator was included in the model for the purpose of determining the natural
frequencies, but the response to ground motions was computed by applying the ground acceleration
at the shake table level.
10 0 10 15 5
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
brace
elongation (mm)
brace force
(kN)
measured
approximation for
numerical model
15 5
Figure 8. Measured and modelled self-centring energy dissipative (SCED) brace hystereses.
gap elements
elastic-perfectly
plastic element
constrained against
horizontal motion
corotational truss
nonlinear fiber
rigid offset(all )
element (all )
elastic material properties
self-centring material properties
element (all )
rigid links
1M configurations:
2M configurations:
0V configurations:
1V configurations:
gap elements
mass simulation system
pinned connection
fixed connection
Figure 9. Overview of numerical model for shake table testing.
MECHANISMS TO LIMIT HIGHER MODE EFFECTS: CONCEPT, LOW-AMPLITUDE TESTS
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Some assumptions that were made for the predictive model were adjusted on the basis of the testing
results. The primary changes that were made, in order of decreasing inuence on the rst-mode period,
were as follows: the gusset plates were not assumed to provide rigid offsets to the columns, the
stiffness of the gap elements in compression was reduced, and the actual mass of the mass
simulation system was used instead of an estimate. As shown below, these changes were sufcient
to provide reasonable agreement with the experimental results for most parameters while
maintaining the simplicity of the model.
The damping of the shake table test structure is believed to be mostly due to friction with the
lateral supports, with additional contributions from the inherent damping of the elastic system
and from energy radiation into the foundation as the system rocks. Prior to testing, a sensitivity
study that considered estimates of damping between 0.5% and 3% in the rst two modes
suggested that higher mode effects would be most pronounced with low damping but that they
would still be measurable during the experiments even with 3% inherent damping. After the
experimental program was complete, further study demonstrated that the assumed Rayleigh
damping model had a pronounced inuence on the numerical response, with low levels of
damping giving good estimates of the displacement response while higher levels of damping
were needed to match the force envelopes. These issues are discussed in more detail elsewhere
[41]. To achieve reasonable agreement for both displacement and force quantities, all results
presented in this paper use the adjusted model with 5% damping, except where it is noted that
the predictive model was used. The stiffness-proportional component of the damping matrix at
each time step was calculated using the tangent stiffness matrix from the previous time step to
avoid numerical convergence problems associated with using the matrix from the current time step.
5.1. Design validation
This section shows example results from the predictive OpenSees model with 1.5% tangent stiffness
Rayleigh damping in the rst two modes during an event at the 2% in 50-year hazard level (INC-
100% in [21]). The purpose of these analyses was to verify that the experimental structure was
likely to have a response that was consistent with the design concept that was described
previously. Figure 10 shows the predicted roof displacement time history in each conguration.
These numerical results conrmed the initial expectation that the peak displacements and the
shapes of the displacement time traces would not be greatly affected by adding higher mode
mitigation mechanisms.
Figure 11 shows the predicted shear and overturning moment envelopes during the same record. The
upper rocking joint (2M congurations) was predicted to reduce the peak overturning moment at that
location by more than 50%, resulting in reduced overturning moments and storey shears for most of the
structure. The SCED brace (1V congurations), which was designed to activate at a base shear of
26 kN, was predicted to reduce the base shear by more than 60%, also resulting in reduced shears
and overturning moments throughout the structure. The combination of the two higher mode
mitigation techniques (2M1V) was predicted to result in reduced overturning moments throughout
the structure, as well as in reduced shears relative to the 2M0V conguration.
0 30
+1.44%
+1.45%
+1.45%
time (s)
relative roof
displacement
0
0
0
0
0.5% for clarity)
(plots are offset by
peak configuration
1M0V
2M0V
1M1V
+1.45% 2M1V
gridline = 0.5% of height
25 20 15 10 5
Figure 10. Predicted roof displacement time history for all congurations during a record at the 2% in
50-year hazard level (INC-100% in [21]).
L. WIEBE ET AL.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
6. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH NUMERICAL MODEL
6.1. Frequency characterization
In order to determine the rst-mode natural frequency of the experimental structure, impact tests were
performed by striking the top mass with a heavy wooden beam at irregular time intervals. This was
carried out each time the conguration was changed. Figure 12(a) shows the results from a test that
was carried out in the 1M0V conguration before any dynamic testing, and Figure 12(b) shows
similar results from a test in the same conguration after all testing was complete. In each case, the
power spectra are shown for the horizontal accelerometers on the masses at the roof and rst-storey
levels, as well as for the load cells between the frame and the mass simulation system at the same
locations. The power spectra have been averaged over nine Hamming windows of 4096 points with
50% overlap. A low excitation amplitude was used for the rst test to prevent rocking, and clamping
devices were installed for the last test to allow for a larger excitation without any uplift.
Considering the frequency of the rst mode, the spectral peak is somewhat wide and reaches its
maximum at slightly different frequencies for different instruments and levels during the same tests.
However, the peak appears to be near 2.05 Hz both before and after dynamic testing, which
demonstrates that the stiffness of the system did not degrade signicantly during more than 300
dynamic tests that were completed. This frequency is 14% less than the frequency that was
predicted prior to testing (2.33 Hz) but within 4% of the frequency of the numerical model that was
described above (1.97 Hz). Because the power spectral shape was not consistent between
instruments, it was not possible to determine the damping in the rst mode from these results.
Response at higher frequencies dominated the response to these tests for all instruments, particularly
at the rst-storey level. However, it was not possible to determine the exact natural frequencies of the
0
2
4
6
8
storey
peak storey shear (kN)
1M0V
2M0V 1M1V 2M1V
(a)
0
2
4
6
8
storey
(b)
1M0V
2M0V
1M1V
2M1V
peak overturning moment (kN-m)
600 500 400 300 200 100 250 200 150 100 50 0 0
Figure 11. Predicted envelopes for all congurations during a record at the 2% in 50-year hazard level
(INC-100% in [21]): (a) storey shear and (b) overturning moment.
(a) before testing
power
spectral
amplitude
roof
first
first
storey
load cells accelerometers
load cells accelerometers
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(b) after testing
power
spectral
amplitude
roof
storey
frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz)
frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz)
0.0
1.2
0
20
0
160
0
400
0
6
0
80
0
800
0
1200
2.05 Hz
2.05 Hz
2.05 Hz
2.05 Hz
0
4
0
120
0
500
0
800
0
8
0
400
0
2000
0
3000
2.05 Hz
2.05 Hz 2.05 Hz
2.05 Hz
20 15 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 20 15 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
Figure 12. Power spectra of accelerometer and load cell responses at roof and rst-storey levels: (a) impact
tests before dynamic testing and (b) impact tests after dynamic testing.
MECHANISMS TO LIMIT HIGHER MODE EFFECTS: CONCEPT, LOW-AMPLITUDE TESTS
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
higher modes because of the variability between power spectra. The predictive numerical model had a
second-mode frequency of 7.90 Hz, while the updated model had a second-mode frequency of 6.95 Hz.
Although these values seem reasonable based on the roof-level load cells in Figure 12, they are less
consistent with the power spectra of the instruments at the rst-storey level.
On the basis of an examination of the frequency response during these and other tests, all other data
have been ltered to remove noise above 30 Hz.
6.2. Low-amplitude earthquake testing
The seismic testing protocol included a series of low-amplitude earthquakes in order to determine the
response to a relatively frequent ground motion, as well as to verify that the response was consistent
with the results of the numerical model. These earthquake records are summarized in Table II. The
Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes were used for both the Service Level Earthquake (SLE)
and DBE levels because they were consistent with the scenarios that contribute most to the 50% and
10% in 50-year hazard levels, respectively [42]. The records were scaled in increments of 10% to
match the target spectrum at the rst-mode period of the prototype structure (1.0 s). Figure 13 shows
the ground acceleration time history and the acceleration and displacement spectra for the largest
record, DBE-3. The ground motion data are presented at the prototype scale, but all shake table
testing and numerical analyses used records that were scaled according to Table I.
The low-amplitude ground motions excited the structure slightly into the nonlinear range. Although
the base joint opened for all records and congurations, the maximum measured rotation of the base
joint during these records was only 0.2%, and the maximum measured rotation of the upper joint
was 0.03%. The maximum elongation of the SCED brace during these records was 0.7 mm,
compared with an activation elongation of approximately 0.5 mm. The response of the structure to
large-amplitude ground motions, which elicited much more response from these elements, is
described in the companion paper [21].
For each of the low-amplitude ground motions and all four congurations, Table III compares the
peak roof displacement that was measured experimentally with the peak roof displacement from the
numerical model. The peaks are typically within 20% for all congurations during each record, and
the agreement between the numerical model and the experiment is also typically within 20%. The
agreement in the time domain is also reasonable for all congurations, as shown in Figure 14 during
the DBE-3 record. However, the numerical model does not capture the observed result that the
1M0V conguration has a smaller peak roof displacement than the other congurations for all
records except SLE-1.
For all four congurations, Figure 15(a) shows the storey shear force envelopes that were measured
during the DBE-3 record. The storey shears were computed by adding the inertia forces, which were
measured by the load cells in the struts between the frame and the mass simulation system, from the
top of the structure to the storey of interest. Although the storey shear forces are step functions, the
envelopes are drawn continuously to facilitate comparing the results between different
congurations. Even during this relatively low-amplitude ground excitation, the inuence of the
higher mode mitigation is seen in the reduction of storey shear envelopes: implementing both higher
mode mitigation mechanisms (2M1V) resulted in a 20% reduction in base shear relative to the
1M0V conguration. More moderate improvements were seen when only one higher mode
Table II. Summary of ground motions.
ID Earthquake Station M R (km) Vs30 (m/s) NGA ID Azimuth Scaling factor
SLE-1 Northridge (1994) Huntington Beach
(Lake St)
6.7 81 371 980 000 0.70
SLE-2 Loma Prieta (1989) Yerba Buena Island 6.9 97 660 813 090 1.00
DBE-1 Loma Prieta (1989) Hayward
BART Station
6.9 74 371 773 310 1.00
DBE-2 Northridge (1994) Seal Beach
Ofce Bldg
6.7 68 371 1079 000 2.00
DBE-3 Loma Prieta (1989) Bear Valley #5 6.9 76 391 746 310 1.70
L. WIEBE ET AL.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
mitigation mechanism was used. Table III shows that the peak base shear was similar for all
congurations during the smaller records, except during record DBE-1.
Figure 15(b) shows the storey shear force envelopes that were computed with the numerical model
for the DBE-3 record. Although the model captured the reduction in peak storey shears when higher
mode mitigation mechanisms were employed, it overestimated the peak response, particularly for the
congurations with a conventional rst-storey brace (0V). The agreement could be improved by
adjusting the assumed inherent damping of the model, but this would reduce the agreement for other
parameters and for other records. Both Figure 15 and Table III demonstrate that the model was
generally more accurate for the congurations where the shear was controlled using a SCED brace
(1V). This is because the SCED brace provided better control over the base shear, thereby reducing
the sensitivity of the storey shears in the numerical model to the assumed inherent damping [41].
Figure 15(c) shows the measured overturning moment envelopes during the DBE-3 record. The
overturning moments at each time step were calculated by integrating the shear force diagram.
0.20
0.00
0.20
0.12g
0.0
0.5
0
250
(a)
(b) (c)
period (s) period (s)
time (s)
0.0
Vancouver,
10%/50yrs
Sa
(g)
Sd
(mm)
acceleration
(g)
30 20 10 0
4.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 2.0
Figure 13. DBE-3 record: (a) acceleration time history; (b) acceleration spectrum; and (c) displacement
spectrum.
Table III. Summary of experimental and numerical response.
SLE-1 SLE-2 DBE-1 DBE-2 DBE-3
Peak roof displacement 1M0V 0.06% (0.95) 0.14% (0.85) 0.11% (1.55) 0.09% (1.11) 0.19% (1.13)
2M0V 0.05% (1.12) 0.14% (0.85) 0.12% (1.24) 0.14% (0.94) 0.25% (0.89)
1M1V 0.05% (1.28) 0.15% (0.80) 0.11% (1.23) 0.11% (1.19) 0.24% (0.88)
2M1V 0.05% (1.22) 0.18% (0.71) 0.11% (1.27) 0.12% (1.12) 0.21% (0.98)
Peak base shear (kN) 1M0V 21 (0.97) 31 (1.03) 40 (1.37) 31 (1.48) 44 (1.27)
2M0V 20 (0.96) 34 (0.97) 36 (1.10) 34 (1.16) 39 (1.33)
1M1V 16 (1.22) 34 (0.96) 30 (1.06) 28 (1.04) 39 (1.00)
2M1V 19 (1.04) 31 (1.05) 29 (1.01) 31 (0.93) 34 (1.06)
Peak overturning moment
at upper rocking joint (kNm)
1M0V 54 (0.92) 74 (0.87) 91 (1.48) 72 (1.51) 83 (1.28)
2M0V 44 (1.03) 80 (0.78) 76 (1.24) 75 (1.23) 76 (1.26)
1M1V 38 (1.29) 81 (0.88) 73 (1.31) 70 (1.04) 73 (1.25)
2M1V 44 (1.08) 74 (0.88) 76 (1.15) 69 (1.05) 63 (1.38)
Format of entries: experimental value (ratio of value from numerical model to experimental value).
0
+0.19%
+0.25%
+0.24%
+0.21%
time (s)
relative roof
displacement
0
0
0
0
0.2% for clarity)
(plots are offset by
peak configuration
experiment numerical model
1M0V
2M0V
1M1V
2M1V
gridline = 0.1% of height
20 15 10 5
Figure 14. Roof displacement time histories for all congurations during DBE-3 record.
MECHANISMS TO LIMIT HIGHER MODE EFFECTS: CONCEPT, LOW-AMPLITUDE TESTS
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Using both higher mode mitigation mechanisms (2M1V) reduced the moment envelope relative to the
1M0V conguration, although not by as much as the shear force envelope was reduced. The base
moment was larger for the 2M0V and 1M1V congurations than for the 1M0V conguration
because the larger peak roof displacements increased the post-tensioning forces. However, the peak
moments were reduced slightly relative to the 1M0V conguration over most of the rest of the
frame. Table III shows that the maximum overturning moment at the location of the upper rocking
joint in the 2M1V conguration was reduced by about 20% relative to the 1M0V conguration for
the SLE-1, DBE-1, and DBE-3 records. Overturning moment reductions were also observed for the
2M0V and 1M1V congurations.
Comparing Figures 15(c) and 15(d), the numerical model correctly identied that the higher mode
mitigation mechanisms reduced the peak overturning moments. However, the model somewhat
overestimated the moments above the base. For most records, the numerical model was more
accurate for the congurations with multiple force-limiting mechanisms than for the 1M0V
conguration because the mechanisms provided better control over the force envelopes, thereby
reducing the sensitivity of the model to the assumed inherent damping [41].
7. CONCLUSION
Higher mode effects have previously been shown to amplify the design forces for controlled rocking
steel frames relative to the peak forces from pushover analyses. In order to limit the moments above
the base of the structure, this paper proposed one or more controlled rocking joints above the base. In
order to limit the peak base shear, a nonlinear brace at the rst-storey level was also suggested. An eight-
storey prototype rocking frame was designed to achieve the same base shear as a BRBF at a target roof
drift of 2.0%. The prototype design, which included these higher mode mitigation techniques, was scaled
to a 30% scale shake table test specimen. Numerical modelling prior to testing suggested that the
proposed mitigation mechanisms would reduce the higher mode force amplication.
Reasonable agreement was found between the predicted and measured frequency of the rst mode
prior to uplift, and the agreement was improved by minor modelling adjustments. The numerical model
provided a good estimate of the seismic response, and it tended to be more accurate for the
congurations that included higher mode mitigation mechanisms than for the base rocking only
(1M0V) conguration. This difference is attributed to the improved control over the peak forces
0
2
4
6
8
storey
peak storey shear (kN) peak overturning moment (kN-m)
0
(a)
0
2
4
6
8
storey
(c)
0
2
4
6
8
storey
peak storey shear (kN)
(b)
0
2
4
6
8
storey
(d)
1M0V
1M1V
2M1V
2M0V
1M0V
1M1V
2M1V
2M0V
1M0V
1M1V
2M1V
2M0V
1M0V
1M1V
2M1V
2M0V
experimental
numerical
experimental
numerical
100 80 60 40 20
0 100 80 60 40 20
200 160 120 80 40 0
200 160 120 80 40 0
peak overturning moment (kN-m)
Figure 15. Response during DBE-3 record: (a) shear force envelope in experiment; (b) shear force envelope
in numerical model; (c) overturning moment envelope in experiment; and (d) overturning moment envelope
in numerical model.
L. WIEBE ET AL.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
when multiple force-limiting mechanisms are used. This is consistent with the intent of capacity
design, which aims to limit the uncertainty associated with seismic response. Multiple force-limiting
mechanisms are anticipated to enable similar improvements in the capacity design of other systems
where nonlinearity is concentrated at a single location, such as reinforced concrete shear walls.
Low-amplitude seismic tests demonstrated that the experimental setup behaved generally as
designed. Even though the deformations in the higher mode mitigation mechanisms were small, they
reduced the peak base shear by up to 27% and the peak overturning moment at mid-height by up to
24% relative to the base rocking only (1M0V) conguration. This reduction was only seen for
records where the higher modes contributed signicantly to the response in the 1M0V conguration,
but it was achieved without signicant increase in the lateral displacements. A more detailed
discussion of the structural response, including the relationship that shear forces and overturning
moments have with brace and column forces, is presented in a companion paper that focuses on
testing at larger amplitudes [21].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this project was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada,
the Canadian Seismic Research Network, the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, and the Fonds
de Recherche du Qubec sur la Nature et les Technologies. Dungil Rubber Belt Co. (Busan, Korea)
fabricated the SCED brace. Lainco Inc. (Terrebonne, Quebec) and the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
contributed to the shake table test setup. The contributions of the staff and students at the Laboratoire de
Structures Hydro-Qubec de lcole Polytechnique de Montral are also gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Choi H. Residual drift response of SMRFs and BRB frames in steel
buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05. Journal of Structural Engineering 2011; 137(5):589599.
2. Iwata Y, Sugimoto H, Kuwamura H. Reparability limit of steel structural buildings based on the actual data of the
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. Proc., 38
th
Joint Meeting of the Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, Gaithersburg,
MD. 2005.
3. Miranda E, Ramirez CM. Inuence of residual displacements on building loss estimation. Proc., 9
th
US and 10
th
Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Toronto, ON. 2010.
4. Housner GW. The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Soci-
ety of America 1963; 53(2):403417.
5. Beck JL, Skinner, RI. The seismic response of a reinforced concrete bridge pier designed to step. Earthquake Engi-
neering and Structural Dynamics1974; 2(4):343358.
6. Kelly JM, Tsztoo DF. Earthquake simulation testing of a stepping frame with energy-absorbing devices. UCB/EERC
Report 77/17, Earthquake Eng. Research Centre, Berkeley, CA. 1977.
7. Clough RW, Huckelbridge AA. Preliminary experimental study of seismic uplift of a steel frame. UCB/EERC Report
77/22, Earthquake Eng. Research Centre, Berkeley, CA. 1977.
8. Priestley MJN, Sritharan S, Conley JR, Pampanin S. Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS ve-story
precast concrete test building. PCI Journal 1999; 44(6):4267.
9. Midorikawa M, Azuhata T, Ishihara T, Matsuba Y, Matsushima Y. Wada A. Earthquake response reduction of
buildings by rocking structural systems. Proc., Smart Structures and Materials 2002: Smart systems for bridges,
structures, and highways (SPIE Vol. 4696). San Diego, CA. 2002.
10. Roke D, Sause R, Ricles JM, Seo C-Y, Lee K-S. Self-centering seismic-resistant steel concentrically-braced frames.
Proc., 8
th
National Conf. on Earthquake Eng., San Francisco, CA. 2006.
11. Wiebe L, Christopoulos C, Pampanin S. Seismic response of self-centering base-rocking steel structures. Proc., 9
th
Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Ottawa, ON. 2007.
12. Pollino M, Bruneau M. Seismic retrot of bridge steel truss piers using a controlled rocking approach. Journal of
Bridge Engineering 2007; 12(5):600610.
13. Tremblay R, Poirier L-P, Bouaanani N, Leclerc M, Rene V, Fronteddu L, Rivest S. Innovative viscously damped
rocking braced steel frames. Proc., 14
th
World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Beijing, China. 2008.
14. Eatherton M, Hajjar J, Ma X, Krawinkler H, Deierlein G. Seismic design and behavior of steel frames with controlled
rocking Part I: concepts and quasi-static subassembly testing. Proc., ASCE/SEI Structures Congress 2010, Orlando,
FL. 2010.
15. Ma X, Deierlein G, Eatherton M, Krawinkler H, Hajjar J, Takeuchi T, Kasai K, Midorikawa M, Hikino T. Seismic
design and behavior of steel frames with controlled rockingpart II: large scale shake table testing and system
collapse analysis. Proc., ASCE/SEI Structures Congress 2010, Orlando, FL. 2010.
16. Gledhill SM, Sidwell GK, Bell DK. The damage avoidance design of tall steel frame buildings Fairlie terrace
student accommodation project, Victoria University of Wellington. Proc., 2008 NZSEE Conference, New Zealand
Soc. Earthquake Eng., Wellington, NZ. 2008.
MECHANISMS TO LIMIT HIGHER MODE EFFECTS: CONCEPT, LOW-AMPLITUDE TESTS
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
17. Mar D. Design examples using mode shaping spines for frame and wall buildings. Proc., 9
th
US and 10
th
Canadian
Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Toronto, ON. 2010.
18. Christopoulos C, Filiatrault A, Folz B. Seismic response of self-centring hysteretic SDOF systems. Earthquake En-
gineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(5):11311150.
19. Roke D, Sause R, Ricles JM, Gonner N. Damage-free seismic-resistant self-centering steel concentrically-braced
frames. Proc., STESSA 2009, Taylor & Francis, London. 2009.
20. Eatherton M, Hajjar J. Large-scale cyclic and hybrid simulation testing and development of a controlled-rocking steel
building system with replaceable fuses. NSEL Report NSEL-025, Dept. of Civil and Env. Eng., Univ. of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. 2010.
21. Wiebe L, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Leclerc M. Mechanisms to limit higher mode effects in a controlled rocking
steel frame. 2: Large-amplitude shake table testing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, submitted.
2012.
22. Blakeley RWG, Cooney RC, Megget LM. Seismic shear loading at exural capacity in cantilever wall structures.
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 1975; 8(4):278290.
23. Rutenberg A. Seismic shear demand on RC structural walls: review and bibliography. Proc., III ECCOMAS
Thematic Conf. on Comp. Methods in Struct. Dyn. and Earthquake Eng., Corfu, Greece. 2011.
24. Young D, Felgar RP. Tables of characteristic functions representing normal modes of vibration of a beam.
Publication 4913, University of Texas, Austin, TX. 1949.
25. Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons: New
York, NY, 1992.
26. Veletsos AS, Newmark, NM. Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions.
Proc., 2
nd
World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan. 1960.
27. Wiebe L, Christopoulos C. Mitigation of higher mode effects in base-rocking systems by using multiple rocking
sections. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2009; 13(SP1):83108.
28. Wiebe L, Christopoulos C. Mitigation of higher mode effects in base-rocking systems by using multiple rocking
sections. Research Report ROSE 2009/01, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy. 2009.
29. Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI. Dual-plastic hinge design concept for reducing higher-mode effects on high-rise
cantilever buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009; 38(12):13591380.
30. Tremblay R, Ben Ftima M, Sabelli R. An innovative bracing conguration for improved seismic response. Proc.,
Recent Advances and New Trends in Struct. Des. International Colloquium, Timisoara, Romania. 2004.
31. Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Kim H-J, Lacerte M. Self-centering energy dissipative bracing system for the seismic
resistance of structures: development and validation. Journal of Structural Engineering 2008; 134(1):96107.
32. National Research Council of Canada (NRCC). National Building Code of Canada (12th edn.) NRCC: Ottawa, ON, 2005.
33. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-05,
Reston, VA. 2006.
34. Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Design of steel structures. CSA S16-09, Mississauga, ON. 2009.
35. OpenSees. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees), v 2.2.2.c. [Computer software]. Pacic
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA. 2010.
36. Choi H, Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R. Comparison of the seismic response of steel buildings
incorporating self-centering energy-dissipative dampers, buckling restrained braces and moment resisting frames.
Rep. No. 05-2008. Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 2008.
37. Erochko J, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Kim HJ .Shake table testing and numerical simulation of a self-centering
energy-dissipative braced frame. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics [In Review].2012.
38. Harris HG, Sabnis GM. Structural Modeling and Experimental Techniques (2nd edn). CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton,
FL, 1999.
39. Kim H-J, Christopoulos C. Friction damped posttensioned self-centering steel moment-resisting frames. Journal of
Structural Engineering 2008; 134(11):17681779.
40. Tremblay R, Lger P, Rogers C, Bouaanani N, Massicotte B, Khaled A, Lamarche C-P. Experimental testing of large
scale structural models and components using innovative shake table, dynamic, real-time hybrid simulation and
multi-directional loading techniques. Proc., 3rd International Conf. on Advances in Exp. Struct. Eng., San Francisco,
USA. 2009.
41. Wiebe L, Christopoulos C, Tremblay R, Leclerc M. Modelling inherent damping for rocking systems: results of
large-scale shake table testing. Proc., 15
th
World Conf. on Earthquake Eng., Lisbon, Portugal. 2012.
42. Natural Resources Canada (NRC). Seismic hazard deaggregation for sites at (49.250N, 123.120W) and (45.509N,
73.554W). Prepared for Robert Tremblay. Personal communication, 03 March 2010. 2010.
L. WIEBE ET AL.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe