Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference
PVP2009
July 26-30, 2009, Prague, Czech Republic
SHAKING TABLE TESTS WITH LARGE TEST SPECIMENS OF SEISMICALLY
ISOLATED FBR PLANTS
PART 3: ULTIMATE BEHAVIOR OF UPPER STRUCTURE AND RUBBER BEARINGS
Shuichi Yabana
Central Research Institute of Electric Power
Industry
1646 Abiko, Abko-shi,
Chiba-ken, 270-1194, Japan
yabana@criepi.denken.or.jp
Seiji Nagata Seiji Kitamura
Central Research Institute of Japan Atomic Energy Agency
Electric Power Industry 4002 Narita, O-arai, Ibaraki-ken,
1646 Abiko, Abko-shi, 311-1393, Japan
Chiba-ken, 270-1194, Japan
ABSTRACT
This paper describes results of shaking table tests to grasp
ultimate behavior of seismic isolation system under extremely
strong earthquake motions, including failure of rubber bearings.
The results of the shaking table tests are expected to be useful
for the design of seismically isolated nuclear facilities,
especially fast breeder reactor (FBR) plants. In the test, lead
rubber bearings, of which the diameter is 505 mm and about 1/3
scale of a prototype in planning FBR plants, are used; the test
specimens are loaded by the largest three-dimensional shaking
table in E-defense of National Research Institute for Earth
Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED) of Japan. Failure of
rubber bearings occurs with amplified tentative design
earthquake motions. From the tests, the ultimate responses of
the upper structure and rubber bearings are presented. In
particular, the change of floor response spectra and restoring
force characteristics of rubber bearings according to increase of
input motions is discussed. Furthermore, mechanism of the
failure of rubber bearings is investigated from the observation
of failure surfaces and cut sections, static loading tests, and
material tests of rubber bearings. Finally, the function of seismic
isolation system after the failure of a part of rubber bearings is
confirmed under the tentative design earthquake.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/03/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
PVP2009-77229
Kenji Kanazawa
Central Research Institute of Electric Power
Industry
1646 Abiko, Abko-shi,
Chiba-ken, 270-1194, Japan
kanazawa@criepi.denken.or.jp
Takeshi Sano
Obayashi Corporation
4-460 Shimo-kiyoto, Kiyose-shi,
Tokyo, 204-8558, Japan
INTRODUCTION
Application of seismic isolation technology to nuclear
power plants, especially FBR plants, is expected to reduce
earthquake load to both structures and inner equipment, and to
facilitate the rational seismic design of the plants. On the other
hand, Japanese regulatory guide for aseismic design of nuclear
power reactor facilities (Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan)
was revised in 2006. In the regulatory guide, method of
evaluation of design earthquake motions was revised and
seismic probabilistic safety assessment (seismic PSA) of the
plants might be introduced in the future. In the seismic PSA of
the seismically isolated plants, it is important that evaluation of
ultimate behavior of seismic isolation system subjected to
extremely strong earthquake motions. However, the data of the
ultimate behavior of seismic isolation system have been not
prepared enough.
Although shaking table tests of ultimate behavior of seismic
isolation system have been carried out [1-4], very small rubber
bearings, of which diameters were around 100mm, have been
used in the tests. Therefore, the scale of the rubber bearings
were lower than 1/15 of prototypes for seismically isolated
nuclear power plants, so that the characteristics of the rubber
bearings might not be the same as those of prototypes.
1 Copyright © 2009 by ASME
 In this paper, shaking table tests of seismic isolation system
with large test specimens are conducted to grasp the ultimate A5
behavior of the system experimentally [5, 6]. The ultimate Upper slab Wall
Counter
behavior includes dynamic failure of large lead rubber bearings, weight
of which diameters were 505 mm. In the tests, floor responses A3
Lower slab
of the upper structure and ultimate behavior of rubber bearings
are obtained under extremely strong earthquake motions. Rubber bearing Upper base mat
Behavior of rubber bearings is compared with results of static
loading tests before the shaking table test. Then the failure Lower base mat
surface and cut section of rubber bearings after the tests are
Shaking
observed; static loading tests of rubber bearings surviving the direction
shaking and material tests of specimens cut from the bearings Z
are conducted to investigate their inner state. Furthermore,
(a) Elevation of Y direction Y
response reduction under the design earthquake motion after
failure of bearings is confirmed.
Upper slab
ULTIMATE BEHAVIOR TESTS WITH SHAKING TABLE Wall
Lower slab
Test Specimen and Test Conditions
Figure 1 shows the test specimen for the shaking table tests Rubber bearing Upper base mat
[5, 6]. Two sets of the same test specimens which consist of an
upper structure and an isolation layer were used. Mass of the
upper structure of the test specimens is 600 ton. It consists of a Z
stiff upper base mat, 4 reinforced concrete walls, upper and [Unit: mm]
X
lower slabs of the walls and counter weights. The counter
weights are set on the upper base mat in the failure tests of (b) Elevation of X direction
rubber bearings. The state of the test specimen is called low
center setting. The upper structure is supported by six lead Upper base mat
rubber bearings (LRBs) in the isolation layer. Therefore, one of
LRBs sustained 100 ton. Figure 2 shows LRB set up in the Counter A5(A3)
isolation layer of the specimen. Table 1 shows specification of weight
LRB. LRB was geometrically 1/3.16 reduced scale of a Upper slab
prototype bearing in planning FBR plants; the diameter and the
design vertical stress of LRB are 505 mm and 5.15 MPa,
respectively. Table 2 shows similarity law applied to the tests. X
In series of the tests, the largest three-dimensional shaking Y
table owned by NIED [7, 8] was used. Figure 3 shows a
(c) Plan of test specimen
tentative design earthquake motion assumed in this study. Time
in the figure is scaled by 3.16-1/2 according to the similarity law. Fig.1 TEST SPECIMEN FOR ULTIMATE BEHAVIOR
In the ultimate behavior tests, the amplitude of the tentative tests
design earthquake motion was reduced by band pass filter not to
reduce dominant response of the specimens, because the
shaking table has the loading limit of acceleration [5]. The
filtered design earthquake motion is called the filtered wave SH
in this paper. In the ultimate behavior tests, amplified SH was
used as an input wave of the shaking table in Y-direction of the
specimens.
Two same sets of test specimens are called specimen-1 and
specimen-2, respectively. Procedures of shaking for the two
specimens were changed. In specimen-1, the amplitude of input
acceleration was gradually increased until the rubber bearing
broke, after shaking tests with design earthquake motions. On
the other hands, specimen-2 was subjected to extremely strong
Fig.2 LEAD RUBBER BEARING (LRB) SET UP
earthquake motion, which was 4.0 times as large as the filtered
IN TEST SPECIMEN
wave SH, after shaking of design earthquake motions.

2 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/03/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 SPECIFICATION OF LEAD RUBBER BEARING (LRB) earthquake motion of 3.5SH and over. Then the shear strain of
Bearing load [kN] 980 LRBs in the earthquake motion of 3.5SH was 472%; it was in
Design vertical stress [MPa] 5.15 the hardening region of rubber bearings. Therefore, the increase
Diameter of Rubber [mm] 505 of peak acceleration response occurred as a result of hardening
Rubber thickness [mm] 3 mm x 24 sheets of LRBs.
Diameter of lead plug [mm] 112
Horizontal period after yield [sec] 1.6
Vertical frequency [Hz] 27

Table 2 SIMILARITY LAW OF TEST SPECIMEN

Parameter Dimension Similarity law
(specimen / prototype)
Length L 1/= 1/3.16
Failure in specimen-2 Failure in specimen-1
Velocity L/T = 0.56 (Input: 4.8SH) (Input: 4.0SH)
2
Acceleration L/T 1
Time T = 0.56
Mass M 1/=0.1 (a) Layout of failure of LRBs
1/=0.1
2
Force M L/T
2
Stress M / LT 1
Acceleration

500
(cm/s/s)

250
0
-250
-500
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
(a) Tentative design earthquake motion (b) Moment of breaking of LRB (LRB #3& #4, Specimen-1)
Acceleration

300 Fig.4 FAILURE OF LRBs IN THE TESTS

(cm/s/s)

150
0
-150 Table 3 MAXIMUM RESPONSES OF SPECIMEN-1
-300
0 10 20 30 40 Input Input Acc. at Acc. at Disp. of Shear
Time (sec) level acc. A3 A5 LRB strain of
(b) Filtered wave SH (target) [cm/s2] [cm/s2] [cm/s2] [mm] LRB [%]
1.0SH 259 208 214 60 84
Fig.3 INPUT EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS USED IN THE TEST 1.5SH 386 241 251 99 137
2.0SH 537 255 273 159 221
Failure of LRBs and Responses under Extremely Strong 2.5SH 681 312 332 221 307
Earthquake Motions 3.0SH 824 480 497 275 382
Figure 4 shows the layout of failure of LRBs in the isolation 3.5SH 1054 989 1107 340 472
layer and photographs of the moment of breaking of LRBs in 4.0SH 1374 1713 1902 400 556
specimen-1 taken by east side video cameras. The failure
occurred at the corner LRBs of the isolation layer, where the Table 4 MAXIMUM RESPONSES OF SPECIMEN-2
vertical stress during earthquake motions changed larger than Input Input Acc. at Acc. at Disp. of Shear
those at the center. In specimen-1, two LRBs were level acc. A3 A5 LRB strain of
simultaneously broken in the input earthquake motion of 4.0SH; (target) [cm/s2] [cm/s2] [cm/s2] [mm] LRB [%]
1.0SH 226 207 214 51 71
LRB #3 was perfectly broken and LRB #4 was partially done at
1.5SH 343 238 241 89 124
the first rubber layer of upper side. The failure shear strain of
4.0SH 1290 1672 1828 378 525
LRBs was 556%, corresponding to horizontal displacement of
4.5SH 1235 1131 1283 402 558
400 mm. On the other hand, LRB #2 in specimen-2 was 4.8SH 1353 1661 1679 433 601
partially broken at the first rubber layer of lower side in the
motion of 4.8SH, and the failure shear strain was 601%, Figure 5 shows acceleration response spectra of 1%
corresponding to horizontal displacement of 433 mm. damping of critical at the shaking table, the lower slab (A3) and
Table 3 and Table 4 show maximum responses according to the upper slab (A5) for the input earthquake motion of 1.0 SH,
the procedures of each shaking. The specimens had effect on 3.0SH, 3.5SH and 4.0SH in specimen-1. Figure 6 shows
reduction of peak acceleration response in the earthquake acceleration response spectra at the shaking table, A3 and A5
motion of 3.0SH or less, whereas that drastically increased in the for the input earthquake motion of 1.0 SH, 4.0SH, 4.5SH and

3 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/03/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 4.8SH in specimen-2. At A3 where is near to the center of
gravity of the upper structure, the increase of the responses to 14000
the input motions was not remarkable. On the other hand, the 12000 1.0SH A5
4.0SH h=0.01
responses at A5 had large peaks in the range from 0.03 sec. to 10000

ACC. [cm/s/s]
4.5SH
0.1 sec. These peaks of the response spectra arose as results of 4.8SH
8000
rocking vibration of the upper structure and vibration of the
wall. In particular, non-linear vibration and damage of the wall 6000
occurred in specimen-2, because the wall of specimen-1 was 4000
fixed by protection device of collapse and that of specimen-2 2000
was free. Furthermore, difference of loading history between
specimen-1 and specimen-2 hardly affected the response spectra 0
0.01 0.1 1
in comparison with those in the earthquake motion of 4.0SH. PERIOD [sec]
(a) Upper slab A5
12000 14000
1.0SH A5 12000 1.0SH A3
10000 h=0.01
3.0SH h=0.01 4.0SH
10000

ACC. [cm/s/s]
ACC. [cm/s/s]

3.5SH 4.5SH
8000 4.0SH 4.8SH
8000
6000
6000
4000 4000
2000 2000
0 0
0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1
PERIOD [sec] PERIOD [sec]
(a) Upper slab A5 (b) Lower slab A3
12000 14000
1.0SH A3 Table
10000 12000 1.0SH
3.0SH h=0.01 4.0SH h=0.01
ACC. [cm/s/s]

3.5SH 10000
ACC. [cm/s/s]

8000 4.5SH
4.0SH 4.8SH
8000
6000
6000
4000
4000
2000 2000
0 0
0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1
PERIOD [sec] PERIOD [sec]
(b) Lower slab A3 (c) Shaking table (Input)
12000
1.0SH Table Fig.6 FLOOR ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA IN
10000 SPECIMEN-2 (Damping factor h=1%)
3.0SH h=0.01
ACC. [cm/s/s]

3.5SH
8000 4.0SH
6000 Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the shear stress-shear strain
relationship of LRBs during the shaking table tests. Moreover,
4000 breaking points of LRBs are shown in the figures. In the input
2000 earthquake motion of 3.0SH, hardening of LRBs occurred a
little. According to increase of the amplitude of input
0 earthquake motion, the hardening became clearer. In specimen-
0.01 0.1 1
PERIOD [sec] 2, the hysteresis loops in the earthquake motion of 4.5SH and
(c) Shaking table (Input) 4.8SH were not symmetry with respect to the origin. From the
results, occurrence of inner damage of LRBs before the
Fig.5 FLOOR ACCELERATION RESPONSES SPECTRA
IN SPECIMEN-1 (Damping factor h=1%)
breaking is estimated.

4 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/03/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 In the static failure tests, 8 LRBs were loaded up to breaking
2 8
Specimen-1 under various conditions. From the results, restoring force
6 Specimen-1
SHEAR STRESS (MPa)

SHEAR STRESS (MPa)

Input: 1.0SH Input: 3.0SH characteristics under large deformation and the failure condition
1 4
for LRBs was obtained. Under 5.15MPa of the design vertical
2
0 0
stress, failure strains of LRB in monotonic loading and
-2
increasing repetition loading were 493% and 539%
-1 -4
respectively.
-6
Figure 9 shows restoring force characteristics of the static
-2 -8
increasing repetition loading test, monotonic loading test and
-200 -100 0 100 200 -600 -300 0 300 600 the shaking table test in input earthquake motion of 4.0SH to
SHEAR STRAIN (%) SHEAR STRAIN (%) specimen-1. Hysteresis loop of the shaking table test is larger
than that of static repetition loading, especially in hardening
8 8
range of LRB; loading curve of the shaking table test in the
6 Specimen-1 6 Specimen-1
SHEAR STRESS (MPa)

SHEAR STRESS (MPa)

Input: 3.5SH Input: 4.0SH ultimate state is in good agreement with that of monotonic
4 4
loading test. Failure strain of the shaking table test is somewhat
2 2
0 0
larger than that of monotonic loading test, whereas it is almost
-2 -2
the same as that of repetition loading test.
-4 -4 8
-6 -6 4.0SH Specimen-1
6
-8 -8 Breaking Repetition loading
Monotonic loading

SHEAR STRESS (MPa)

-600 -300 0 300 600 -600 -300 0 300 600 4
SHEAR STRAIN (%) SHEAR STRAIN (%)
2
Fig.7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHEAR STRESS AND
SHEAR STRAIN OF LRBs IN SPECIMEN-1 0

2 8 -2
Specimen-2 6 Specimen-2
SHEAR STRESS (MPa)

SHEAR STRESS (MPa)

-4
Input: 1.0SH Input: 4.0SH
1 4
2 -6
0 0 -8
-2 -600 -300 0 300 600
-1 -4 SHEAR STRAIN (%)
-6 Fig.9 SHEAR STRESS - SHEAR STRAIN RELATIONSHIP
-2 -8 OF SHAKING TABLE TEST, STATIC REPETITION
-200 -100 0 100 200 -600 -300 0 300 600 LOADING TEST AND MONOTONIC LOADING TEST
SHEAR STRAIN (%) SHEAR STRAIN (%)
Figure 10 shows relationship between vertical stress and
8 8
Breaking shear strain of partially broken LRB of specimen-1 and
6 Specimen-2 6 Specimen-2
SHEAR STRESS (MPa)

SHEAR STRESS (MPa)

Input: 4.5SH Input: 4.8SH specimen-2 in comparison with the failure condition of LRBs
4 4
obtained by static loading tests. The hysteresis curve of LRB #4
2 2
0 0
of specimen-1 in the earthquake motion of 3.5SH reaches the
-2 -2
boundary of tensile stress, whereas it is smaller than the failure
-4 -4
condition. The hysteresis curve of specimen-1 in the motion of
-6 -6
4.0SH exceeds the boundary of failure condition in both
-8 -8
compress and tensile regions; failure of LRB #4 in specimen-1
-600 -300 0 300 600 -600 -300 0 300 600 occurred in compress region. The hysteresis curve of LRB #2 of
SHEAR STRAIN (%) SHEAR STRAIN (%) specimen-2 in the earthquake motion of 4.0SH is quite similar to
that of specimen-1; they were symmetrical with respect to the
Fig.8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHEAR STRESS AND
SHEAR STRAIN OF LRBs IN SPECIMEN-2 vertical axis. Nevertheless, failure of specimen-2 in the motion
of 4.0SH did not occur, because the hysteresis curve may be a
Comparison between Results of Static Failure Tests and little smaller than that of specimen-1 in compress region. The
Those of Shaking Table Tests hysteresis curve of specimen-2 in the motion of 4.8SH exceeds
Static loading tests of LRBs were performed before the the boundary of failure condition; failure of LRB occurred in
shaking table tests. The static loading tests were both compress region. However, input earthquake motion increased,
examinations of the design performance and static failure tests. the increase of vertical stress in tensile side was relatively small.

5 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/03/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Therefore, as discuss previously, the inner of LRBs of OBSERVATION AND MATERIAL TESTS OF LRBS
specimen-2 in the motion of 4.0SH may be damaged. AFTER SHAKING TABLE TESTS
10
Specimen-1 LRB #4 Failure in static test Observation of Failure Surface of LRBs
VERTICAL STRESS (MPa)

5 Input: 3.5SH Failure surfaces of broken LRBs in the shaking table tests
were observed and classified according to failure modes of
0
rubber and bond in them. Figure 11 shows failure surfaces and
-5 the results of classified failure for LRB #3 and #4 of specimen-
1. The states of the failure surfaces at the starting point of the
-10 breaking were failure of rubber material; the state of broken
LRB of specimen-2 was the same. Therefore, failure of LRBs
-15
occurred by failure of rubber material, because of large shear
-20 deformation. The integrity of the bond between rubber sheets
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 and inner steel plates of LRBs was confirmed.
SHEAR STRAIN (%)
10
Specimen-1 LRB #4 Failure in static test
VERTICAL STRESS (MPa)

5 Input: 4.0SH

-5

-10
Breaking
-15

-20
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 Starting point of Breaking
SHEAR STRAIN (%) (a) LRB #3 of specimen-1
10
Specimen-2 LRB #2 Failure in static test
VERTICAL STRESS (MPa)

5 Input: 4.0SH
No breaking area
0

-5

-10

-15

-20
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 Starting point of Breaking
SHEAR STRAIN (%) (b) LRB #4 of specimen-1
10 Fig.11 FAILURE SURFACE AND FAILURE MODE (black:
Specimen-2 LRB #2 Failure in static test
failure of rubber including no breaking, white: failure of bond)
VERTICAL STRESS (MPa)

5 Input: 4.8SH

0 Static loading tests after shaking table tests

After shaking table tests, static loading tests of 9 LRBs
-5
surviving the ultimate behavior tests were carried out under the
-10 same condition as that before the shaking up to shear strain of
Breaking 200%. Average of mechanical characteristics of LRBs from
-15 static loading tests before and after shaking table tests are
shown in Table 5. Change of the stiffness after yielding of lead
-20
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 plug and yielding load under shear strain of 100% was very
SHEAR STRAIN (%) small, whereas that of stiffness under shear strain of 200% was -
Fig.10 VERTICAL STRESS-SHEAR STRAIN 11.7%. From the results, inner damage of LRBs might occur.
RELATIONSHIP OF LRB IN SHAKING TESTS AND However, the change of stiffness under small deformation did
FAILURE CONDITION OBTAINED BY STATIC TESTS

6 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/03/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 not appear because of inner friction of LRBs under The shear material tests and peeling tests were carried out
compression, the effect of damage became remarkable with specimens from 9 LRBs surviving the ultimate behavior
according to increase of the deformation. tests and a virgin LRB except for examination of the design
performance. The location of specimens in the LRB is shown in
Table 5 AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF LRBs FROM Figure 13. 4 specimens for each test were cut from upper-right,
STATIC LOADING TESTS BEFORE AND AFTER SHAKING upper-left, lower-right and lower-left of an LRB.
TABLE TESTS
(a) Before (b) After
{(b) –(a)}/ (a)
shaking shaking
3 3
Stiffness under 1.388×10 1.348×10
-2.8%
100% shear strain kN/m kN/m
Yielding load under
83.144 kN 81.433 kN -2.1%
100% shear strain
3 3
Stiffness under 1.244×10 1.098×10
-11.7%
200% shear strain kN/m kN/m
Yielding load under
73.767 kN 76.989 kN 4.4%
200% shear strain

Observation of Cut Section of LRBs

LRBs used in the shaking table tests were cut in a loading
direction of the ultimate behavior tests to observe the state of
their inner damage. An example of cut section of LRB is shown
in Figure 12. The lower figure is an LRB surviving the ultimate
behavior tests, and the upper is virgin except for examination of
the design performance. In the former, bending of inner steel
plates and deformation with cracks of lead plug were found,
whereas in the latter those were not found. The other LRBs
surviving the tests had a lot of inner damage as well as the
above. From the observation, it was obvious that the inner of
LRBs surviving the ultimate behavior tests were severely
damaged. Nevertheless, as discussed previously, the change of
the mechanical characteristics after the ultimate behavior tests
was small. This suggests the possibility that LRBs have
redundancy for the inner damage.
(a) Virgin LRB
(a) Horizontal section of LRB
[Unit: mm]
(b) Vertical section of LRB
Fig.13 LOCATION OF SPECIMENS OF BOTH SHEAR
MATERIAL TEST AND PEELING TEST
The average characteristics in the shear material tests are
shown in Table 6. According to the results, shear modulus of
elasticity of 100% shear strain of LRB surviving the tests
decreased by about 10% against that of the virgin material,
whereas the breaking shear stress and strain were similar to
those of the virgin LRB. The breaking mode of all shear
material specimens was failure of rubber material; failure of the
bond between rubber sheets and inner steel plates was not
found. Next, from the results of the peeling tests, peeling mode
of all specimens was failure of rubber material; consequently,
no defect of the bond between rubber sheets and inner steel
plates was found.
As the results of these material tests, it was verified that the
bond of the LRB had good performance.

Table 6 AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS IN SHEAR

MATERIAL TESTS
(b) LRB #1 of specimen-2 after the ultimate behavior tests LRB surviving Virgin
Fig.12 CUT SECTION OF LRB the shaking LRB
Shear modulus of elasticity [MPa] 0.402 0.455
Damping factor 0.031 0.026
Results of Shear Material Tests and Peeling Tests Breaking shear stress [MPa] 6.99 6.80
Breaking shear strain [%] 653 610

7 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/03/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 RESPONSE UNDER DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MOTION
AFTER ULTIMATE BEHAVIOR TESTS 2500
Shaking table tests under the tentative design earthquake Before Failure
motion with specimens after the failure of LRBs were carried 2000 After Failure

ACC. [cm/s/s]
out to investigate the response, especially the function of Specimen-1
1500
response reduction. Before the shaking, it was confirmed that A3
LRBs kept the function of support of the upper structure by the h=0.01
1000
inspection after their failure, because of no gap in their breaking
points. 500
Table 7 and Table 8 show maximum responses of
specimens before and after the failure of LRBs. The difference 0
of the input accelerations was very small in each specimen. 0.01 0.1 1
Response acceleration at lower slab A3 after the failure was a PERIOD [sec]
little smaller than that before the failure. On the other hand, (a) Specimen-1
shear strain of LRBs after the failure was larger than that before 2500
the failure.
Figure 14 shows acceleration response spectra at A3 of Before Failure
2000 After Failure
each specimen. The peak period of the spectra after the failure

ACC. [cm/s/s]
became longer than that before the failure. Since LRBs were 1500 Specimen-2
damaged by extremely strong earthquake motions, their A3
stiffness after the failure slightly decreased. 1000 h=0.01
Nevertheless, the difference of the responses of upper
structure before and after the failure was small. From the 500
results, it was confirmed that the function of response reduction
in the specimens after the failure remained. 0
0.01 0.1 1
Table 7 MAXIMUM RESPONSES OF SPECIMEN-1 BEFORE
PERIOD [sec]
AND AFTER THE FAILURE OF LRBs (b) Specimen-2
Before failure After failure Fig.14 ACCELERATION RESPONSES SPECTRA AT THE
Input acceleration [cm/s2] 533 520 LOWER SLAB A3 BEFORE AND AFTER THE FAILURE
Acceleration at A3 [cm/s2] 203 191 OF LRBs UNDER THE TENTATIVE DESIGN
Shear strain of LRBs [%] 69 106 EARTHQUAKE MOTION (Damping factor: h=1%)

Table 8 MAXIMUM RESPONSES OF SPECIMEN-2 BEFORE

AND AFTER THE FAILURE OF LRB (1) The failure of LRBs occurred in the earthquake motions
Before failure After failure of 4.0 to 4.8 times as large as the filter wave of the
Input acceleration [cm/s2] 467 443 tentative design earthquake motion. Then failure strain of
Acceleration at A3 [cm/s2] 205 186 LRBs was from 556% to 601%; that was almost the same
Shear strain of LRBs [%] 74 142 as static failure strain.
(2) Under extremely strong earthquake motions, the
CONCLUSIONS response near to the center of gravity of the upper
The ultimate behavior tests with 2 large specimens of structure hardly increased to the input motions. On the
seismic isolation system were conducted using the largest other hand, the responses at the top of the specimen had
shaking table owned by NIED. The responses of the upper large peaks in the range from 0.03 sec. to 0.1 sec. These
structure and LRBs were grasped under extremely strong peaks of the response spectra arose as results of rocking
earthquake motions; in the end of the tests LRBs of 505mm in vibration of the upper structure and vibration of the wall.
diameter were dynamically broken. Moreover, the failure (3) Although the procedures of shaking between specimen-1
surface and cut section of rubber bearings after the tests were and specimen-2 were changed, the effect of loading
observed; static loading tests of rubber bearings surviving the history on the response spectra was considerably small.
shaking and material tests of specimens cut from the bearings (4) It was confirmed that LRBs was damaged before the
were carried out to investigate their inner state. Finally, failure under extremely strong earthquake motions from
response reduction under the design earthquake motion after their hysteresis loops during the shaking and the
failure of bearings was discussed. The following was confirmed observation of cut section of LRBs surviving the tests
through the tests:

8 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/03/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (5) Failure mechanism of LRBs in the ultimate behavior tests Paper Number 356
was confirmed from the observation and rubber material
tests; the breaking of LRBs began from failure of rubber
material. Therefore, it was confirmed that the bond
between rubber sheets and the inner steel plates had good
performance.
(6) Shaking table tests under the tentative design earthquake
motion with specimens after the failure of LRBs were
carried out. From tests, it was confirmed that the function
of response reduction in the specimens after the failure
remained.

We obtained a lot of valuable results from the tests. These

results can be applied to seismic PSA for seismically isolated
facilities and so on. The simulation of the test results will be
discussed in the next paper.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their applications to
Prof. T. Fujita, University of Tokyo, for his helpful suggestions.
The shaking table test was carried out with the cooperation of
National Research Institute of Earth Science and Disaster
Prevention, and the static loading and material tests of lead
rubber bearings were performed with the cooperation of
Bridgestone Corporation.

REFERENCES
[1] Moteki, M. et al., ”Shaking table test on ultimate behavior
of seismic isolation system Part 1: Outline of the test and
response of superstructure, 10th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering (10th WCEE), 1992.
[2] Ishida, K. et al., ”Shaking table test on ultimate behavior of
seismic isolation system Part 2: Response behavior of rubber
bearings, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
(10th WCEE), 1992.
[3] Ishida, K. et al., ”Recent Results of Seismic Isolation Study
in CRIEPI –Tests on Seismic Isolation Elements, Vibration
tests and Observations-, IAEA Specialist Meeting (San Jose,
California, U.S.A.), 1992.
[4] Watanabe, Y. et al., “Shaking Table Test on Failure
Characteristics of Base Isolation System”, Trans. of SMiRT-
15, 1999, K16/4.
[5] Kitamura, S., et al., “Shaking Table Tests with Large Test
Specimens of Seismically Isolated FBR Plants, Part 1:
Response Behavior of Test Specimen under Design Ground
Motions“, ASME PVP09, 2009.
[6] Inaba, S., et al., “Shaking Table Tests with Large Test
Specimens of Seismically Isolated FBR Plants, Part 2:
Damage Test of Reinforced Concrete Wall Structure“,
ASME PVP09, 2009.
[7] Ohtani, K. et al., “World’s Largest Shaking Table Takes
Shapes in Japan (The 3rd Report)”, SMiRT 17 2003, K12-1.
[8] Kajiwara, K. et al., "Shaking table and activities at E-
Defense", First European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006,

9 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/03/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use