Invited Paper

Seismic Design Implications for Low-to-moderate

Seismicity Regions from Earthquake Simulation Tests
on RC Building Structures in Korea

*Han Seon Lee1)

1)
School of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering,
Korea University, Seoul, 136-713, Korea
1)
hslee@korea.ac.kr

ABSTRACT

This paper briefly introduces the state of practice in seismic design and
construction in Korea. Then, the experimental researches through the earthquake
simulation tests to identify the seismic weakness of reinforced concrete (RC)
nonseismic building structures designed only for gravity loads and also to observe
seismic performance of RC residential building structures designed per the recent
Korean seismic code are presented. Based on all these observations, some important
seismic design implications are summarized for code writers or engineers in low-to-
moderate seismicity regions.

1. INTRODUCTION OF SEISMIC CODES AND DESIGN PRACTICE IN KOREA

Seismic design requirements in the building design code was introduced for the
first time in 1988 by the Architectural Institute of Korea(AIK) since the damages and
loss of lives by 1985 Mexico City earthquake exceeded the level tolerable to any
government such as the Korean government that was then preparing for the 1988
Summer Olympic Game in Seoul. The change in the equations for the design base
shear of building structures is shown in Table 1.
Design peak ground acceleration (PGA) defined as zone factor was 0.12g or
0.08g in 1988 version. In 1997 Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (EESK) set
forth the equation of design base shear for all type of facilities as shown in Equation (2)
with the modification of zone factor to 0.11g or 0.07g. This formula is actually the same
as the corresponding equation in UBC 97 (Uniform Building Code 1997). In the same
report, EESK also defined seismic hazard factors for the relative intensity of design
earthquakes which have different return periods as shown in Table 2. According to
modification of zone factor by EESK 1997, AIK changed the corresponding factor, from

1)
Professor

1
0.12g and 0.08g to 0.11g and 0.07g in the earthquake load equation in 2000 (AIK
2000). Architectural Institute of Korea substantially revised this code (AIK 2000) to
Korea Building Code (KBC) in 2005. KBC 2005 follows the framework of International
Building Code (IBC) in 2000. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) having the
return period of 2500 year, was defined with PGA = 0.22g or 0.14g. The design
earthquake (KBC 2005) has been changed from the earthquake with the return period
of 500 years to two third of the intensity of the MCE. With a calibration of the values of
SDS and SD1 for this level of PGA’s for several soil conditions, the values are defined
as the design values for the Equation (4) in Table 1. As shown in Fig. 1, which
compares the elastic design spectra of AIK 2000 and KBC 2005, the design base shear
in KBC 2005 has increased remarkably due to the considerations of high amplification
of soft soil and the change in the definition of design earthquake. KBC 2009 has
maintained the frame work of KBC 2005, but expanded the classification of structures
and modified some factors.

Table 1. History of base shear in seismic building design codes in Korea

Design code Base shear
AIS 1.75 AI 1.5 AIS
V= W≤ W or V = W (1)
AIK 1988 1 .2 T R R R
(allowable A: zone factor (0.12, 0.08), I: importance factor,
stress design) S: soil factor (3 groups), R: response modification factor,
T: fundamental period
Design earthquake (EQ): EQ with return period of 500 years
Cv I 2.5Ca I
V= W≤ W (2)
EESK 97* RT R
(strength Ca, Cv: seismic coefficient (0.11, 0.07), I: importance factor,
design) R: response modification factor, T: fundamental period,
Soil factor: 6 groups (SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, SF)
Design earthquake (EQ): EQ with return period of 500 years
AIS 1.75 AI
V= W≤ W (3)
AIK 2000 1 .2 T R R
(allowable A: zone factor (0.11, 0.07), I: importance factor,
stress design) S: soil factor (4 groups), R: response modification factor,
T: fundamental period
Design earthquake (EQ): EQ with return period of 500 years
S D1 S DS
V= W≤ W (4)
( R / I E )T R / IE
KBC 2005
(strength SD1, SDS: spectral accelerations at period 1sec and 0.2sec, respectively, ,
design) I: importance factor, R: response modification factor,
T: fundamental period, Soil factor: 5 groups (SA, SB, SC, SD, SE)
Design earthquake = (2/3)×MCE (return period of 2500 years)
* EESK 97 is a research report which was not implemented into the design code.

2
 0.8 0.8
A=0.11 S1 A=0.11 SA
0.7 0.7
I=1.0, R=1.0 S2 I=1.0, R=1.0 SB
0.6 S3 0.6 SC
0.5 S4 0.5 SD

Sa (g)
Sa (g)

0.4 0.4 SE

0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Period (sec) Period (sec)

(a) AIK 2000 (b) KBC 2005

Fig. 1 Elastic design spectrum (strength design level)
70
Year 2010
Ratio of Apartments / Total (%)

60 Total No. of housing units: 14,577,419 58.4

Total No. of apartment units: 8,576,013 52.5
50 47.7

40 37.5

30
22.6
20
13.4
10 7.9

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year National Census

(a) The number of apartment units in Korea (b) A bird eye view to a district of Seoul
Fig. 2 RC residential buildings in Korea

Table 2. Scale factor of the design PGA for the EQ. with return period (EESK 1997)
Return period (year) 50 100 200 500 1000 2400
Scale factor 0.40 057 0.73 1.0 1.4 2.0

The intensity of design earthquake defined in KBC 2009 is introduced in Fig. 3(a)
in several forms of spectrum. And the case of soil condition SC are compared between
Seoul in Korea and Melbourne in Australia, where the design intensity in Seoul appears
much higher than that in Melbourne (Fig. 3(b)). Also, design spectrum in KBC 2009 is
compared with the response spectrum of El Centro (1949) and Taft (1952) earthquake
recorded accelerograms, where soil condition of El Centro corresponds to SD with that
of Taft to SC in Fig. 3(c). It can be seen that the design spectrum in KBC 2009 is
comparable those of magnitude 6.9 and 7.3 earthquake ground motions, which means
that the intensity of Korean design earthquake may be overly high since Korean
peninsula is generally known to be a low-seismicity zone.
Lateral-force resisting building system are classified as shown in Table 4. There
are some difference between KBC 2009 and IBC 2006. Generally, Korean Code follows
the classification of US codes. Some important difference are the height limit for high-
rise building structure, but KBC 2009 requires the special seismic details for the
building structures with the height exceeding 60m and belonging to the design category
D. Most of the residential buildings as shown in Fig. 2(b) do not belong to this category
but more residential buildings recently constructed exceed this height limit, therefore
become subject to special detailing requirement as shown in Fig. 4, where the
congestion of reinforcement due to this requirement cause difficulty in construction.

3
 0.8 100 Sa
60
Sa
Design spectrum Design spectrum Sb
Design spectrum
Sb 50
80 Sa
0.6 Sc Sc
40 Sb
Sd Sd
60
Sa (g)

Sv (cm/s)

Sd (cm)
Sc
Se Se
0.4 30 Sd
40 Se
20
0.2
20 10
0.0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (sec) T (sec) T (sec)
0.8
Sa
ADRS Ts(sec) Sv(cm/s) Sa(g) Sd (cm), T=3.0s
Sb
0.6 Sc Sa 0.4 18.3 Sa 0.293 8.7
Sd
Sa (g)

0.4 Se Sb 0.4 22.9 Sb 0.367 10.9

Sc 0.536 36.2 Sc 0.433 17.3
0.2
Sd 0.576 44.9 Sd 0.499 21.4
0.0 Se 0.701 71.6 Se 0.653 34.1
0 5 10 15
Sd (cm)

(a) Design spectrum of KBC2009 (Seismic zone 1 (S = 0.22g))

0.5 60 30
Design spectrum Design spectrum Seoul (Sc)
Design spectrum
0.4 50 Melbourne (Sc) 25
Seoul (Sc) Seoul (Sc)
Melbourne (Sc) 40 20
0.3 Melbourne (Sc)
Sa (g)

Sv (cm/s)

Sd (cm)
30 15
0.2
20 10
0.1 10 5
0.0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (sec) T (sec) T (sec)
0.5
ADRS
0.4 Seoul (Sc)
Seoul Melbourne
0.3 Melbourne (Sc)
 Zone factor, S=0.22g  Hazard factor, a=0.144g (z=0.08g)
Sa (g)

0.2 (Return period of Zone 1 : 2400yr)  Probability factor, kp=1.8 (2500yr)

 T0= 0.107, Ts=0.536  T1= 0.35, T2=1.5
0.1
 Soil factor: Sc (Vs.30=360~800m/s)  Soil factor: Be (Vs.30=360m/s ~)
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Sd (cm)

(b) Design spectra for Seoul and Melbourne: low-to-moderate seismicity regions (Lam, 2014)
0.8 120 KBC 2009_Sc
60 KBC 2009_Sc
Design spectrum KBC 2009_Sc
KBC 2009_Sd KBC 2009_Sd
Design spectrum Design spectrum KBC 2009_Sd
100 El centro (Sd)
50 El centro (Sd)
0.6 El centro (Sd)
taft (Sc) taft (Sc) taft (Sc)
80 40
Sd (cm)
Sa (g)

Sv (cm/s)

0.4 60 30
40 20
0.2
20 10
0.0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (sec) T (sec) T (sec)
0.8
ADRS KBC 2009_Sc
KBC 2009_Sd
El centro (Sd)
0.6 taft (Sc) El Centro earthquake Taft earthquake
 Magnitude, M=6.9  Magnitude, M=7.3
Sa (g)

0.4
 Rupture distance, R=12.99km  Rupture distance, R=43.49km
0.2  Soil factor, Sd (VS.30=213.4m/s)  Soil factor, Sc (VS.30=385.4m/s)

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Sd (cm)

(c) Comparison among KBC2009, El Centro, and Taft Spectra

Fig. 3 Design spectra

4
Table 3. Classification of facilities to “seismic design categories” in KBC2009 (Fardis, 2014)
High Ordinary Temporary,
EPA on rock under MCE Special facilities*
consequences** facilities not for people
EPA < 0.045g A A A A
0.045g < EPA < 0.05g B A A A
0.05g < EPA < 0.06g B B A A
0.06g < EPA < 0.075g B B B A
0.075g < EPA < 0.085g B B B B
0.085g < EPA < 0.1g D B B B
0.1g < EPA < 0.12g D D B B
0.12g < EPA < 0.15g D D D B
0.15g < EPA D D D D
* Special facilities: essential in post-disaster emergency, or with hazardous contents.
** High consequences: large occupancy, congregation areas, etc.

Table 4. Design factors for RC lateral force-resisting systems (Fardis, 2014)

Code KBC 2009 IBC 2006 (ASCE 7-05)
Height limit Height limit
Seismic Force- Design factors Design Design factors Design
Resisting System Category Category
R Ω0 Cd C D R Ω0 Cd C D
Bearing wall Special RC walls 5 2.5 5 - - 5 2.5 5 - 50m
systems Ordinary RC walls 4 2.5 4 - 60m 4 2.5 4 - X
Building frame Special RC walls 6 2.5 5 - - 6 2.5 5 - 50m
systems Ordinary RC walls 5 2.5 4 - 60m 5 2.5 4.5 - X
Special MRF 8 3 5.5 - - 8 3 5.5 - -
Moment resisting
Intermediate MRF 5 3 4.5 - - 5 3 4.5 - -
frame (MRF)
Ordinary MRF 3 3 2.5 - X 3 3 2.5 X X
Dual systems with Special RC walls 7 2.5 5.5 - - 7 2.5 5.5 - -
special MRF Ordinary RC walls 6 2.5 5 - X 6 2.5 5 - X
Dual systems with Special RC walls 6.5 2.5 5 - - 6.5 2.5 5 - 50m
intermediate MRF Ordinary RC walls 5.5 2.5 4.5 - 60m 5.5 2.5 4.5 - X

(a) Special details of shear walls (b) Mock-up test of special shear wall
(30-story residential bldg. in Daegu, Korea)
Fig. 4 Problems of special details required for category SD

5
2. EARTHQUAKE SIMULATION TESTS IN KOREA

2.1 1:5-scale 3-story RC Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame with Nonseismic Detailing

The objectives of the research (Lee and Woo, 2002a) are to investigate the
seismic performance of a 3-story reinforced concrete (RC) ordinary moment-resisting
frame, which has not been engineered to resist earthquake excitations.
The prototype of this test model was adopted from a building structure for the
police office, actually built and in use in Korea. The plan and elevation of the 1:5 scale
model are shown in Fig. 5(a). The compressive strength of concrete, fc’, in the
prototype structure is assumed to be 20.6 MPa and the nominal yield strength of
reinforcement, 294.2 MPa. The typical sections of members and the details regarding
transverse steel, anchorage and splice are shown in Fig. 5(d). The important
characteristics in the Korean detailing practice are as follows: (1) the splice is located at
the bottom of the column, (2) the spacing of hoops is relatively large, (3) seismic hooks
are not used, (4) confinement reinforcements are not used in beam-column joints, and
(5) the special style of anchorage in the joints. That is, the length of tension and
compression anchorage are usually 40db and 25db respectively, from the critical section,
where db means the nominal diameter of reinforcement. Moreover, the length of the tail
in the hook is included in this anchorage length and the tails of the anchorage of the
bottom bars in beams usually direct downward into the exterior columns.
Considering the capacity of the shaking table to be used, the reduction scale for
the model was determined as 1:5. Using the techniques for manufacturing the model
according to the similitude requirements developed through other researches, a 1:5
scale 2-bay 3-story RC frame model (bare frame (BF) model) was constructed. This
model was, then, subjected to the shaking table motions simulating Taft N21E
component earthquake ground motions (Fig. 6(a)), whose magnitude of peak ground
acceleration (PGA) was modified to approximately 0.12g, 0.2g, 0.3g, and 0.4g in Table
5. The used shaking table in the laboratory at Hyundai Institute of Construction
Technology is 3m×5m with one degree of freedom. Displacement transducers,
accelerometers and load cells were used to measure the lateral displacement and the
angular rotations in some ends of beams and columns, acceleration at each story, and
shear forces on the columns of the first story. Before and after each earthquake
simulation test, free vibration tests were performed to determine the change in the
natural period and the damping ratio of the model. Due to the limitation in the capacity
of the used shaking table, a pushover test was performed to observe the ultimate
capacity of the structure after earthquake simulation tests.
Though the model structure in this study was designed only for the gravity loads
in zones of low seismicity, the structure could resist not only the design earthquake,
which it would be supposed to resist if it were to be designed against earthquake, but
also the higher levels of the earthquake excitations. The main components of its
resistance to the high level of earthquakes appear to be (1) the high overstrength (Fig.
6(b)), (2) the elongation of the fundamental period (Table 6), (3) the minor energy
dissipation by inelastic deformations (Fig. 6(c)), and (4) the increase of the damping
ratio (Table 6).

6
 Frame A
420
(Instrumented frame)

840 1680

Frame B

420

50 1260 480 1260 60

3110

3110 (b) Shaking table tests

120

600
*See (h) for detail

120

600 2220
C1 C1 ' C2 C2' C3 C 3'
B1 B2
120
LOAD CELL B1 ' B2' LOAD CELL
660
300  25 600
H100x100x6x8
H300x300x10x15
300

300 1260 1740 300

SHAKING TABLE
3600

(a) Plan and elevation (c) Pushover test

Section C1-C1’ Section C2-C2’ Section C3-C3’

(d) detais of column
Fig. 5 1:5-scale 3-story RC moment-resisting frame model (Lee and Woo, 2002a)

Table 5. Test program of BF model

Identification of Test PGA (g) Remarks (Return Period)
TFT_012 0.12 Design earthquake (EQ.) in Korea (500 years)
Earthquake TFT_02 0.2 Max. EQ. in Korea (1000 years)
Simulation
Test TFT_03 0.3 Max. considered EQ. in Korea (2000 years)
TFT_04 0.4 Severe EQ. in high seismic regions of the world
Pushover
PUSH - Ultimate capacity of the structure
Static Test

Table 6. Natural period and damping ratio by free-vibration test of BF model

Before After After After After
Identification of Test
TFT_012 TFT_012 TFT_02 TFT_03 TFT_04
Natural period (sec) 0.266 0.229 0.265 0.265 0.317
Damping ratio (%) 4.1 4.6 4.4 5.8 7.9

7
 0.4
Output
0.35 Input
Korea(Elastic)
0.3 UBC(Elastic)
Korea(R=3.5)
0.25 UBC(Rw=5.0)

V/W
0.2
UBC(Elastic)
0.15
KOREA(Elastic)
0.1 R=3.5 Rw=5.0
0.05
Range of model
0 0.226 0.317
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Period(sec)

(a) Response spectrum for input and output table motions and design spectra
60 4500
crushing of concrete at column
4000 TFT_012 3rd story

Absorbed Energy(kN*mm)
40 TFT_04
first significant yield 3500
Push-II
24.33 Push-I 3000
Base Shear(kN)

20 2nd story

2500
0 10.82 y=20.0 u=47.2 2000
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
1500
TFT_012 (Experiment)
-20 TFT_02 (Experiment) 3rd story 1st story
TFT_03 (Experiment) 1000
TFT_04 (Experiment) 1st story 2nd story
-40
Pushover (Experiment) 500
PUSH-I (Analysis)
PUSH-II (Analysis)
TFT_012(Analysis) 0
TFT_04(Analysis)
-60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Roof Drift(mm) Time(sec)

(b) Base shear versus roof drift in tests (c) Time histories of absorbed energy in
and analyses earthquake simulation test

(d) Development of cracks in pushover test




  

(e) Typical global structural response idealized (f) Effective earthquake load factor for first
as linearly elastic-perfectly plastic curve significant yield at critical member ends
Fig. 6 Test results of BF model (Lee and Woo, 2002a)

8
 The overstrength factor, Ω, of the model structure can be demonstrated by
calculating both Ωs=Cs/Cω and Ωy=Cy/Cs with respect to the flexural moment capacity
as follows: First, the coefficient, Ωs, can be calculated through the linear elastic analysis
of the model structure up to the occurrence of the first plastic hinge. It was found
through linear elastic analyses that the model structure can meet the flexural moment
demands under the load cases of 1.4D+1.7L and 0.75(1.4D+1.7L±1.87E), with the
minimum margin of safety being 25% and 34%, respectively. However, since the
gravity load condition during the earthquake simulation tests can be described as 1.0D,
the ratios of the demanded flexural moment to the capacity for the load case, 1.0D, are
recalculated. Then, by comparing the demanded flexural moment for the load case of
earthquake (1.0E) to the reserved flexural capacity (Capacity -1.0D), we can obtain the
coefficient, Ωs, which is the least value as shown in Fig. 6(f). This value, Ωs, appears to
be 5.06 and this is similar to the ratio Ωs=Cs/Cω derived from pushover analysis, (24.33
kN) / (4.61 kN) = 5.28. Secondly, Ωy=Cy/Cs can be calculated in case of the experiment
(with strain aging) Cy/Cs = (51.35 kN) / (24.33 kN) = 2.11 and, in case of the analysis
(without strain aging) Cy/Cs = (40.00 kN) / (24.33 kN) = 1.64. Therefore, the
overstrength coefficient, Ω, can be obtained by multiplying these two coefficients as
11.1 (with strain aging) or 8.7 (without strain aging). These large values of the
overstrength coefficient account for the reason why the low-rise RC building structures
have the large reserved strength for severe earthquakes even though they were
designed only for the gravity loads in the lower seismic zones.
The design base shear derived from the linear elastic base shear of the structure
divided by the response modification factor, R=3.5, seems to be completely fictitious or
misleading because the high overstrength factor, Ω=8.7, implicit in the structure due to
the pre-existing overstrength of the materials and section properties and the reduction
in the dead and live loads with regards to the reactive weight caused the model
structure behave entirely linear elastically under the design earthquake. Therefore, as
far as this study alone is concerned, it is more reasonable that the concept of the
reduction of the design base shear considering the energy dissipation by the inelastic
response under the design earthquake be waived for the low-rise building structures in
the low-seismicity regions. However, considering the possibility of unexpected large
earthquakes, the structures in low-to-moderate seismicity regions should retain the
ductility to some extent, which can be achieved through the implementation of the
requirements on the detailing of reinforcement and structural layout of important lateral-
load-resisting elements.

2.2 1:5-scale 3-story Masonry-Infilled RC Frame with Nonseismic Detailing

Lee and Woo (2002b) investigated the actual responses of masonry-infilled RC

frame with nonseismic detailing under the simulated earthquake ground motions. After
earthquake simulation tests, the monotonically-increasing lateral-load test or the
pushover test was performed to find out the ultimate capacities of the model. By
comparing the results of these tests with those in the case of the bare frame (Lee and
Woo, 2002a), the significance or the effect of masonry infills are evaluated.
Two layouts of masonry infills in Figs. 7(a) and (b) were used for earthquake
simulation tests: that is, fully infilled frame (FIF) and partially infilled frame (PIF). The

9
experimental setups for the shaking table tests are shown in Figs. 7(c). Two displacement
transducers and accelerometers were installed at each floor to measure the effect of
torsion due to accidental asymmetry of two frames. A load cell was installed in the mid-
height of the column at the first story to measure the shear force of each column. To
measure the local responses such as the end angular rotations in the possible plastic
hinge regions, 16 displacement transducers were used. And also, to measure the strains
at the center of the masonry infills, strain gauges were diagonally attached in the plane of
masonry infills. After the series of earthquake simulation tests have been conducted on the
FIF model, there appeared to be only minor cracks on the masonry infills with the frame
itself remaining intact. Therefore, a portion of masonry infills were removed as shown in Fig.
7(d) and then this model, defined as PIF, was again subjected to the same series of
earthquake simulation tests as the FIF. The experimental setup for the pushover test is
shown in Fig. 7(d). The adopted input ground accelerogram is the Taft N21E component
and the peak ground acceleration (PGA) was modified to 0.12g, 0.2g, 0.3g, and 0.4g as
shown in Table 5, which is the same as BF model, while the time scale has been
compressed according to the similitude law.

Frame A: Instrumented frame Frame A: Instrumented frame

Infill wall Infill wall

Frame B Frame B
(a) Plan of FIF (b) Plan of PIF
D6 D7
120
A6 A7

600
D4 D5 A4 A5
120
REFERENCE FRAME
R4 R9 600
D2 D3 A2 A3 2520
R3 R5 R8 120

LOAD CELL R2 LOAD CELL R7 LOAD CELL

660
R1 R6
A1-1 A1-2

STRAIN GAGE 300

D1

SHAKING TABLE
300 1260 1740 300
3600

(c) Shaking table test of FIF (Fully Infilled Frame)

D4 D5 D6

ACTUATOR

D3

REFERENCE FRAME

D2 WHIFFLE TREE

LOAD CELL LOAD CELL

D1 Strain Gage

(d) Pushover test of PIF (Partially Infilled Frame)

Fig.7 1:5-scale 3-story masonry-infilled RC frame model (Lee and Woo, 2002b)

10
 The natural periods of FIF and PIF models are compared with those of the bare
frame (BF) model in Fig. 8(a). The period of FIF model (0.06 sec) was found to be the
shortest while the PIF model (0.17 sec) shows shorter period than the BF model (0.23
sec). The natural period of the FIF model did not change significantly except the small
increase after TFT_03 test whereas that of the PIF model was found to increase
gradually as the applied peak ground acceleration (PGA) increased. In Fig. 8(b),
maximum interstory drift indices (I. D. I.) in the FIF and PIF models under the varying
peak input accelerations are shown and compared with those measured in the case of
BF. The drifts of the PIF are greater than those of the FIF under the same level of input
ground motions. However, I. D. I. of neither FIF nor PIF exceeds the maximum value of
1.5% allowed in the Korean seismic code even under TFT_04.
Fig. 8(c) show the hysteretic relations between the base shear and the interstory
drift at the first story of FIF, PIF, and BF, respectively. It can be seen that FIF, PIF, and
BF all behave linear elastically under TFT_012 which is assumed to represent the design
earthquake in Korea. The stiffness of FIF:PIF:BF turns out to be 147kN/mm:
33.3kN/mm:7.94kN/mm. The FIF model had more energy absorption through the friction
within the infills or between the infills and the bounding frame with the stiffness remaining
almost constant as the intensity of earthquake ground motions became higher. On the
other hand, the PIF model revealed the phenomenon of varying drift with almost constant
base shear. The reason for this phenomenon is conceived due to the prior occurrence of
the bed-joint sliding cracks at the second-story infill masonry. The amount of energy
absorption in PIF is found to be the smallest in Fig. 8(d). Finally, the BF model reveals
clear yielding under TFT_04 and therefore a large amount of input energy could be
dissipated by this yielding. The maximum base shear of FIF, PIF, and BF under TFT_012
were 32.0 kN, 37.3 kN, and 17.6 kN, respectively. These are 2.5 to 5.3 times the design
base shear, 7.03 kN, according to the Korean seismic code, which will be shown later.
There appeared neither significant damage on the masonry infills, nor any damage
on the frame itself even under the severe earthquake ground motions in Fig. 8(e). The
contribution of masonry infills to the global capacity of the structure turns in PIF model out
to be 80% in strength and 85% in stiffness from the results of pushover test as shown in
Fig. 9(c). However, the failure mode of the masonry-infilled frame in Fig. 9(b) was that of
shear failure due to the bed-joint sliding of the masonry infills while that of the bare frame
appeared to be the soft-story plastic mechanism at the first story and the deformation
capacity of the global structure remains almost same regardless of the presence of the
masonry infills. Therefore, it is essential to consider the effect of masonry infills for the
practical evaluation of the seismic safety of moment-resisting RC frame buildings.
Masonry infills behave beneficially on buildings as far as this experimental study
alone is concerned. The reason for their beneficial behaviors is that the amount of
increase in earthquake inertia force appears to be relatively small, when compared with
the increase in the strength by masonry infills as shown in Fig. 9(a). Above all, masonry
infills appear to have a great effect on the reduction of the global lateral displacement.
The quality of masonry infills, however, depends on the workmanship of masons and
also the credibility of the structural system depends in turn on the quality of masonry. In
case that there are openings in masonry infills, or that panels are partially infilled with
masonry, a more complicated mode of failure can occur with the interaction to the
bounding frame, as already seen in many instances of earthquake damages.

11
 0.4 2
FIF FIF
1.68
PIF 0.317
PIF

Interstory drift index(%)

BF BF
1.6
Natural Period(sec)

0.3 0.265 0.265

the maximum allowable under design earthquake: 1.5%
0.226 0.229
1.2
0.184 0.196 1.08
0.2 0.179
0.165 0.16 0.77
0.8
0.51
0.1
0.063 0.062 0.058 0.07 0.071
0.4 0.26 0.28 0.3

0.24
0.111 0.188
0.106
0 0 0.042
TFT_012 TFT_02 TFT_03 TFT_04 TFT_012 TFT_02 TFT_03 TFT_04

(a) Change of natural periods (b) Change of maximum interstory drift indices
120 120 120

80
FIF model k=147 kN/mm
80
PIF model k=33.3 kN/mm 80
BF model
k=7.94 kN/mm
Base Shear(kN)

Base Shear(kN)
Base Shear(kN)

40 40 40

0 0 0

-40 -40 -40

-80 -80 -80

TFT_012 TFT_012 TFT_012
-120 -120 -120
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16
First Story Drift(mm) First Story Drift(mm) First Story Drift(mm)

120 120 120

80
FIF model k=117.6 kN/mm
80
PIF model k=31.4 kN/mm 80
BF model

Base Shear(kN)
Base Shear(kN)
Base shear(kN)

40 40 40

0 0 0 k=3.43 kN/mm

-40 -40 -40

k1=4.21 kN/mm
-80 -80 -80
TFT_04 -120
TFT_04 -120
TFT_04
-120
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16
Interstory drift(mm) First Story Drift(mm) First Story Drift(mm)

(c) Relation between base shear and interstory drift at first story of BF, FIF, and PIF
4500 4500

4000 FIF model 4000 PIF model

Absorbed Energy(kN*mm)

Absorbed Energy(kN*mm)

3500 3500

3000 3000
3rd story
2500 2500 3rd story
2nd story
2000 2000
1500 1500 2nd story
1000 1st story
1000
500 500 1st story
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time(sec) Time(sec)

(d) Time histories of absorbed energy in earthquake simulation test (TFT_04)

(e) Crack Pattern in earthquake simulation test

Fig. 8 Shake-table test results of FIF and PIF models (Lee and Woo, 002b)

12
 120
(10.2, 98.0) (43.1, 98.0)
100
FIF PIF-Experiment
80 PIF
BF
60 BF-Experiment
(20.0, 40.0)
40 (47.2, 40.0)

Load(kN)
20 BF-Analysis
0
-20
-40 TFT_012
-60 TFT_02
TFT_03
-80 TFT_04
-100
-120
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Roof Drift(mm)

(a) Base shear versus roof drift in tests

Photo A Photo B

(b) Development of cracks in pushover test of PIF model

120 120
BF Experiment
Analysis
100
PIF A Actuator(Infill wall+Frame)
100
k=34.6 kN/mm
Story Shear(kN)
Story Shear(kN)

80 80
Infill wall
4.80 kN/mm 60
60

40 40
Col.(3) Actuator k=5.9 kN/mm
Frame
20 Col.(3) Col.(1) Col.(2) Col.(3)
20 Col.(2)
Col.(2)
Col.(1) Col.(1)
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
First Story Drift(mm) First Story Drift(mm)

(c) Column and total shears at first story in pushover test

Fig. 9 Pushover test results of BF and PIF models (Lee and Woo, 2002b)

2.3 1:12-scale 17-story RC Piloti-Type Building Model

Three 1:12 scale 17-story RC wall building models having different types of
irregularity at the bottom two stories were subjected to the same series of simulated
earthquake excitations to observe their seismic response characteristics (Lee and Ko,
2002; Ko and Lee 2006; Lee and Ko, 2007). From an inventory study of piloti-type
buildings commonly constructed in Korea, three types of a 17-story reinforced concrete
structure were selected as prototypes in Fig. 10(a). These building structures were
designed according to Korean codes, AIK 2000. The first type has a symmetrical
moment-resisting frame (Model 1), the second has an infilled shear wall in the central

13
frame (Model 2), and the third has an infilled shear wall in only one of the exterior
frames (Model 3) at the bottom two stories.

800 800
6,000
28-D25 16-D25

800

800
12,000
D13 @200 D13 @200
6,000

40,500 All columns

6,000 6,000 B-B' Corner column
13,800 except corner columns
B B'
800 Wall 400 D13 @400
6,000
1,800

800
12,000

6,000
A A' 9,700
D13 @200
6,000 6,000 28-D25 16-D25
6,800
13,800 A-A'

(a) Plan, elevation, and details of prototype model

Displacement transducer
Accelerometer
S A,S A,S

+4,343 Roof
1 2 A,S S A,S

A,S A,S A,S

Steel blocks
Model 3
Upper portion

A,S S A,S
3,255

2,617 A,S A,S A,S

S S S

Model 2
Reference A,S S A,S
Frame
Transfer S A,S A,S
+890 fl.
Lower portion

5 6
1,100

+450
2nd fl. 7 Loadcell S S S
A A'
Model 1 A-A' section
+0 8
A: Axial force
Shaking Table
S: Shear force
Location of accelerometer
- +
and displacement transducer

(b) Front view, side view, and plan of 1:12 scale specimens (Models 1, 2, and 3)
150 150

D10 @150 Upper

structure
D16 @150

16 Bolt
D10
Steel plate (t=30)

Steel plate (t=20)

150

Normal concrete
Model concrete
150

Steel plate (t=10)

Lower
frame

(c) Details of connection of upper (d) Shaking table test (Model 3)

structure and lower frame
Fig. 10 1:12-scale 17-story RC building model (Ko and Lee, 2006; Lee and Ko, 2007)

The reduction scale of the models was determined as 1:12 accounting for the
capacity of the available shaking table and the total mass of these models was set to
half of the weight required for the true replica model in the similitude law (Fig. 10(b)).
Since the rigidity of the upper bearing-wall system was considered to be much higher
than that of the lower frame system, the upper system was constructed separately from

14
the lower frame system as a rigid concrete box with steel plates attached as artificial
mass. The upper concrete box with a 30mm steel plate at the bottom was attached by
bolting to the thick transfer floor of the lower frame, as shown in Fig. 10(c). Earthquake
simulation tests were performed by using the shaking table at the Korea Institute of
Machinery and Materials (KIMM). The table is 4m  4m in size and has 6 degrees of
freedom, as shown in Fig. 10(d). The program of earthquake simulation tests is shown
in Table 7. The adopted accelerogram was that recorded as the N21E component in
the 1952 Taft earthquake. The time axis was compressed by applying the scale factor
of 1/√24, and PGA was adjusted to 0.11g, 0.22g, 0.30g, 0.40g, 0.60g, 0.80g, and 1.20g
corresponding to PGA’s, 0.055g, 0.11g, 0.15g, 0.2g, 0.30g, 0.40g, and 0.60g in the
prototype, respectively. Because the upper portion of a model is expected to behave
almost as a rigid body due to its relatively high rigidity, the global response of the
models can be characterized by three kinds of global deformations in the lower frame:
shear deformation (θ1), overturning deformation (θ2), and torsional deformation (θ3),
whose definitions are shown in Fig. 11(a).
Elastic design spectra (R=1.0) for AIK 2000 and UBC 97 (zone 2A) adjusted by
the similitude requirement are compared with the elastic response spectra of the actual
shake table motions, Taft030 and Taft080 for Model 1, in Fig. 11(b). Though Taft030 is
assumed to represent a design earthquake, AIK 2000 elastic design spectral values are
quite different from the elastic response spectrum for Taft030. AIK 2000 elastic design
spectrum tends to underestimate the spectral acceleration in the short natural period
range, T < 0.2sec, and overestimate in the long natural period, T > 0.2sec. The elastic
design spectrum from UBC 97matches well the elastic response spectrum derived from
the table accelerograms of Taft030 of Model 1.

Table 7 Test program of 17-story RC piloti-type building models

PGA (g)
Test Prototype Model
Remark
Taft011 0.055 0.11
Taft022 0.11 0.22
Taft030 0.15 0.3 Design earthquake in Korea (IE=1.5)
Taft040 0.2 0.4
Taft060 0.3 0.6
Taft080 0.4 0.8 Design earthquake in a highly seismic region
Maximum considered earthquake in a highly
Taft120 0.6 1.2
seismic region

The test results of 17-story RC piloti-type building models are as follows:

 The estimations of the fundamental periods specified for other structures than
moment frames and bearing wall structures according to the seismic codes, AIK
2000 and UBC 97, were reasonable regardless of the existence and location of the
infilled shear wall in the lower stories. In Fig. 11 (c), before the earthquake
simulation test, the natural period of the model structure is 0.193 second. After the
first run at the University of Seoul, the natural period increased abruptly to the value
of 0.266 second. The natural period of the model increased continuously for the

15
 subsequent series of earthquake simulation tests. The seismic response
coefficients measured under the design earthquake (Taft030) were 2.8 to 3.1 times
the design coefficient, 0.048 for Models 1 and 2 and Model 3, respectively (Fig. 11
(d)). This result shows that the overstrength factor for the columns supporting the
discontinuous walls given in UBC 97 or IBC 2000 is reasonable.
 Model 1 having no shear wall showed a sway plastic mechanism in the lower
stories during a severe earthquake (Taft080). The story drift ratio (1.57%) was
much larger than the overturning deformation (0.39%). Though the sway
mechanism was the governing collapse mode, the general pattern of the cracks
was horizontal in the columns due to the large overturning moment. The shear wall
in the central frame in Model 2 caused the reduction of shear deformation to 0.48%,
which is about one third of that in the case of Model 1, while the overturning
deformation was almost of a similar level (Figs. 11 (e), (f), and (g)).
 The maximum values of base shear and OTM appear to be similar among all three
models regardless of the existence and location of the shear wall in the lower soft
frame. Shear force resisted by the shear wall amounts to approximately 78% of the
total base shear in Model 2, but only 48% in Model 3. Shear wall in Model 2 showed
mainly a single curvature throughout the post elastic behavior in the first story
whereas the shear wall in Model 3 revealed a mixed behavior of single and double
curvatures depending on the governing mode of vibration in the elastic range.
 The total absorbed energy represents the damage due to earthquake input energy.
In Fig. 11(j), the amounts of the total absorbed energy were almost similar for the
three models. However, Model 3 was damaged by overturning, shear, and torsional
deformation, whereas Model 1 and Model 2 were damaged mainly by shear and
overturning deformation. Though Model 3 had a large torsional deformation in the
lower stories in Fig. 11(g), the maximum shear deformation of the flexible frame in Model
3 was similar to that measured in Model 1. As shown in Figs. 11(k) and (l), the sudden
change of the dynamic mode from the translation-and-torsion coupled mode (Instant
3.05s) to the torsional mode (Instant 5.05s) after the large degradation of stiffness in the
flexible side due to severe shake motions caused, on the contrary, the increase of the
torsional stiffness, of about 4 times that of the previous mode in Fig. 11(m). Therefore,
the large torsional eccentricity did not necessarily induce a larger deformation in the
flexible side in Model 3 when compared with the case of Model 1. The BST diagram in
Fig. 11(n) was useful for observing the mode of vibration leading to the collapse of the
system. The hysteretic curves of Model 3 under Taft080 showed that the base shear and
torque were in phase during the translation/torsion coupled mode, but became out of
phase during the torsional mode after the structure sustained large inelastic deformation
in the flexible side. The hysteretic response and the BST diagram indicated that the most
probable mode of vibration leading to the collapse of the system would be when the
structure was experiencing the coupled mode, and that the three-dimensional collapse
mode and its bent base shears could be easily predicted by using BST diagram.

16
 2
AIK 2000 (R=1.0, IE=1.5)
UBC 97 (R=1.0, IE=1.25)
1.5
Taft030 (Model 1)

CS (V/W)
Taft080 (Model 1)
1

0.496
0.5
0.249
0.201(AIK 2000)
0 T=0.188
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Period (sec)

(a) Definition of deformations (b) Elastic design and table response spectra
0.4 0.4
Natural period (sec)

0.3 0.3
Design earthquake

Cs
0.2 0.2

0.1 T*=0.188sec 0.1

Design Cs = 0.048
0 0
0.11g 0.22g 0.30g 0.40g 0.60g 0.80g 1.20g 0.11g 0.22g 0.30g 0.40g 0.60g 0.80g 1.20g
Test Test

(c) Natural period (d) Seismic response coefficient (Cs)

0.02 0.005
Shear deformation (rad)

Overturning def. (rad)

Side 1 0.004 0.0039 Side 2

0.015 0.0157 Side 2 Side 1
Side 2 0.003 Side 2
0.01 Side 1 Side 1
0.002
0.005
0.001
0
0
-0.005 -0.001
-0.01 Model 1 -0.002
Model 1
-0.015 -0.003
0.02 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.005 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Shear deformation (rad)

0.0048
Overturning def. (rad)

Side 1 0.004 Side 1

0.015 Time (sec) Side 2
Time (sec) Side 2
Side 2 0.003 Side 2
0.01 Side 1 Side 1
0.0051 0.002
0.005
0.001
0
0
-0.005 -0.001
-0.01 -0.002
Model 2 Model 2
-0.015 -0.003
0.02 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.005 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Shear deformation (rad)

Overturning def. (rad)

0.015
Flexible side Stiff side 0.004 Stiff side
0.0148 Time (sec) Time (sec) Flexible side
Stiff side
Flexible side 0.003 Flexible side
0.01
0.002 Stiff side
0.005 0.0017
0.0017 0.001
0
0
-0.005 -0.001
-0.01 -0.002
Model 3 Model 3
-0.015 -0.003
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(e) Shear deformation, θ1 (Taft080) (f) Overturning deformation, θ2 (Taft080)

0.01
Torsional def. (rad)

0.005

-0.005 Roof
Model 1
Transfer fl.
-0.01
0.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (sec)
Torsional def. (rad)

0.005

-0.005 Roof
Model 2 Transfer fl.
-0.01
0.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (sec)
Torsional def. (rad)

0.005

-0.005 Roof
Model 3 Transfer fl.
-0.01
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (sec)

(g) Torsional deformation, θ3 (Taft080) (h) Final crack patterns

Fig.11 Shake-table test results of 1:12-scale 17-story RC building model
(Lee and Ko, 2002; Ko and Lee, 2006; Lee and Ko, 2007)

17
 50
40
(+)
2.85kN/m (+) 9.89kN/mm (+)
30
Shear force (kN)

20 5.48kN/mm
T T T
10
0
-10 `
-20
-30
4.18kN/m
-40 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
-50
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement of transfer floor (mm) Displacement of transfer floor (mm) Displacement of transfer floor(mm)

(i) Relation between base shear and drift at the center of transfer floor (Taft080)
1600 1600 1600

Absorbed energy (kN-mm)

Model 1 Model 2 1455
Model 3
Absorbed energy (kN-mm)
Absorbed energy (kN-mm)

ETOR
1454
1175 1243
1200 ETOR 1200 1200 ETOR
1160 1039
EOTM EOTM
800 EOTM 800 800
526
426 379
400 400 400 Esh
Esh Esh

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)

(j) Time histories of absorbed energy (Taft080)

0.002 2
(a)
 W all
0.001
 UP
Rotation (rad)

-0.001

t = 3.05 s t = 5.05 s
-0.002
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.015
3 (rad) Time (s) (b)
0.01
 Col1  100mm
Rotation & Elongation

0.005

-0.005

-0.01
t = 3.05 s t = 5.05 s
-0.015
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 1 Time (s) (c)
 Col
Col 2

0.5
Elongation (mm)

-0.5
 Col 1  Col 2
Elongation Elongation
t = 3.05 s t = 5.05 s
-1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)

(k) Time histories of wall behaviour and (l) Snap shots of Model 3
global behaviour of Model 3 (Taft080) (Instants 3.05s and 5.05s )
30 30 30
Torsional moment (kN m)
Torsional moment (kN m)
Torsional moment (kN m)

20 20 4,500 kN m/rad 20
1,200 kN m/rad 1,100 kN m/rad

10 10 10

0 0 0

-10 -10 -10

-20 -20 -20

(b) 4-6 s (c) 6-8 s

(a) 3-4 s
-30 -30 -30
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Torsional deformation (rad) Torsional deformation (rad) Torsional deformation (rad)

(m) Relation between torsional moment and torsional deformation of Model 3 (Taft080)
75 50 50
+ Taft080 11.2 kN 11.4 kN
11.7 kN 5.27 s 6.4 kN
50 +
8 7 25 3-4s 8.4 kN 25 13.0 kN
1
Model 3
Torque (kN m)
Torque (kN m)

Model 3
Torque (kN m)

25
2 3.04 s Model 3
0 0 0
6
-25 5 3.15 s
3 4 -25 13.0 kN -25
-50 4.2 kN
Taft080
Taft030, 0-15s 17.5 kN 4-6s
-75 -50 -50
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 -100 -50 0 50 100 -100 -50 0 50 100
Base shear (kN) Base shear (kN) Base shear (kN)

(n) Relation between base shear and torsional moment of Model 3

Fig. 11 (Continued)

18
 The general failure mode was the plastic sway mechanism in the lower frame while a
large overturning moment caused many horizontal cracks at the top of the exterior
column. Horizontal cracks occurred at the construction joint in the shear wall, which
was made for installation of the load cell in the first story (Fig. 11(h)). Very high
compressive forces in the exterior columns caused the spalling of concrete and
buckling of the longitudinal bars just beneath the load cell in each model. The flexible
bent frame revealed a severe damage such as cracks in the beams at the face of
columns and in the interior beam-column joint.

2.4 1:5-scale 5-story RC piloti-type building model

Many low-rise residential apartment buildings have recently been constructed in the
densely populated areas of Korea. As a result of the lack of available sites, the ground floor is
used for a parking lot and a piloti story is adopted. This type of buildings as shown in Fig. 11(a),
commonly has a high irregularity of soft story, weak story, and torsion simultaneously at the
ground story. The test research (Lee et al., 2011) aims at the investigation of realistic seismic
responses of a low-rise RC building structure having high degrees of irregularity in weak/soft
story and torsion at the ground story through shake-table earthquake simulation tests both in
one direction and in two orthogonal directions. The validity of KBC 2005 (IBC 2000) for the
seismic design and evaluation of this highly irregular building structure will be evaluated. For this
purpose, a 1:5 scale five-story RC building model was constructed and tested firstly by uni-
directional and secondly by bi-directional shaking table excitations sequentially with increasing
intensity. The prototype was determined based on the inventory study, and designed by
considering the gravity loads only. The reinforcement details are non-seismic, according to
construction practice in Korea. Dimensions and details of the 5-story RC original prototype are
shown in Fig. 12(a). The lowest two stories of the 1:5 scale structure model were designed and
constructed to strictly satisfy the similitude requirements, while the upper three stories were
replaced with concrete blocks of similar volume (Fig. 12(b)).
The earthquake simulation tests of the model were conducted up to the level of design
earthquake (DE) in Korea, in 2009, at the Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM), in
Fig. 12(c). The experimental set-up and instrumentation to measure the displacements,
accelerations, and forces are shown in Fig. 12(b). The program of earthquake simulation tests is
summarized in Table 8. The target or input accelerogram of the table was based on the
recorded 1952 Taft N21E (X dir.) and Taft S69E(Y dir.) components, and was formulated by
compressing the time axis with the scale factor of 1/√5 and by adjusting the PGA to match the
corresponding (KBC2005) elastic design spectrum. (Fig. 12(d)) The measured shake table
output was much higher in the Y direction than the intended input as given in Table 8. As a result,
since the output of 0.154XY appear to be similar to the input of 0.187XY originally intended for
the design earthquake and the response spectra of these output in Fig. 13(a) generally simulate
the design spectrum, the response of the model under test 0.154XY is assumed to represent the
response of the model to the design earthquake. The response spectrum to this output appears
to be almost two times larger than the design spectrum in the short period range. The model
survived the design earthquake simulation with the PGA of 0.187g, as specified in KBC 2005
without severe damage, even though it was not designed against earthquakes. (Fig. 13(a) and
(b))

19
 13200 12900 13200
6450 6450 3350 3250 3250 3350

2700 2700 2700

X3
Y

4500
200

4700
200

200
X

200
300

9500
X2

9900
200

1600
400

5000
UP

2700
UP

1100 2500
X1

2900
5100 2700 5100
2700 2600 2600 2600 2700
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4
300
70 160 70

3000
70

D10@300x7=2100
130

300 150 150 300

400

6-D19
70 130

D10@200

400
40

200
40 Hor. and Ver. Rebar : D10@300

(a) Prototype structure (unit: mm): elevation; plan (ground floor and 2~5 floor); and
details of column and wall
Y1 Y2 Ref. Y3 Y4
Frame Ref. Frame
2580
DR 1290 1290 DL

DR
Ref. Frame

AL
LC9 LC10 LC11
900

+X
80 x 60 ●

+Y
1900

Ref.
Frame
View A LC5 LC6 LC7 LC8
1000

40
AR LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4
DL
AL 1020 540 1020 AR

View B

(b) Instrumentation
1.2
Elastic, Sc (KBC2005)
1.0 input (X-dir.)
Output (X-dir.)
input (Y-dir.)
0.8 Output (Y-dir.)

Sa 0.6

0.4

R=1, IE=1.0
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Period (sec)

(c) Overview of shaking table test setup (d) Elastic design and table response spectra
Fig. 12 1:5-scale 5-story RC building model (original model) (Lee et al. 2011)

Table 8. Test program (X-dir.: Taft N21E, Y-dir.: Taft S69E)

Test Intended PGA(g) Measured PGA(g) Remark
Designation X-dir. Y-dir. X-dir. Y-dir. (Earthquake in Korea)
0.035 X 0.035 - - -
-
0.035 XY 0.035 0.040 - -
0.070 X 0.070 - 0.076 -
Return period (50yr)
0.070 XY 0.070 0.080 0.075 0.145
0.154 X 0.154 - 0.185 -
Return period (500yr)
0.154 XY 0.154 0.177 0.210 0.289
0.187 X 0.187 - 0.209 -
Design earthquake in Korea
0.187 XY 0.187 0.215 0.268 0.284

20
 Under the uni-directional excitations, the transverse frames and walls played the
role of restraining the torsion induced by the excitations, and, therefore, the base
shears in the transverse direction was small in comparison with those in the excited
direction. Most of the base shear in the transverse direction under bi-directional
excitations was resisted by the core walls, while the torsion was distributed between the
frames and core walls by the approximate ratio of 1:1 in the transverse direction as
shown in Fig. 13(c). Under the bi-directional excitations, the two orthogonal
translational modes acted independently. That is, there was no correlation between the
two orthogonal translational modes. Nevertheless, the correlation of the torsion mode
with one of the translational modes appears to be clear when the responses are within
the elastic range and one of the translational modes is predominant over the other such
as with the case of uni-directional excitations or with the case where the excitations in
the Y direction are significantly more intense than those in the X direction. However, as
the intensity of the bi-directional excitations increased, thereby causing large
excursions into the inelastic range, this correlation disappeared. The maximum torsion
moment and torsion deformation remained almost constant regardless of the
excursions into the inelastic region in the X and/or Y directions.
Under the bi-directional excitations, a high degree of rocking phenomena and the
bi-directional overturning moments induced large variations in the axial forces in the
corner columns and walls. The lateral resistance and stiffness of columns were greatly
affected by the variation of axial forces acting on these columns (Fig. 13(d)). That is,
the high compressive axial force caused high lateral resistance and stiffness whereas
the low compressive or tensile force significantly reduced the lateral resistance and
stiffness. The same phenomena were found in the walls (Fig. 13(d)).
Design Code and Experient
0.6 0.006
0.156 sec X XY
0.005

0.5 0.004 X-dir.

0.154X X-dir. 0.00310
0.003 0.00241
0.154XY Y-dir. 0.00306
0.4 0.002
0.00107
0.001 0.00058 0.00180
0.00027 0.00105
Cs 0.3 R=1, IE=1.0
0
0.035 0.070 0.154 0.187 (test)
0.154XY X-dir.
0.006
0.2 R=3, IE=1.0 X XY 0.00480
0.005
0.004
Y-dir. 0.00362
0.1
0.003
0.154X Y-dir. 0.002
0.00177
0.0 0.00108
0.00091
0.00073
0.001 0.00038
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.00038
Period (sec) 0
0.035 0.070 0.154 0.187 (test)
(a) Test results with the design spectra (b) IDR (rad)

(c) Torsion contribution of Y1+Y4 frames and shear walls Y2+Y3 (2~4sec), 0.154XY
Fig. 13 Shake-table test results of 1:5-scale 5-story RC building model (Lee et al. 2011)

21
 Others Trace from 1 to 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Others Trace from 1 to 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Others Trace from 1 to 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

80 80 4
- δx
P (a) Others
Trace from 1 to 7
- δy
P (b) Others
Trace from 1 to 7
δx(c)
- δy Others
Trace from 1 to 7
60 60 7 5
6 4 4 2
6

40 2 40 2 1

δy(mm)
3

P(kN)
P(kN)

0
20 20 2 4
1
-2
0 1 0
3 7
3 7 5 5 6
-20 -20 -4
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
Others Trace from 1 to 7
δx(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Others Trace from 1 to 7
δy(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Others Trace from 1 to 7
δx(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 2 2 5
Vx - δx Vy - δy 5
Vx - Vy 7
(d) 2 4
(e) 7 (f)
3 1
3
0 0 2 1 0
75 2
Vy(kN)
Vx(kN)

Vy(kN)
3 1
4 4
6
-2 -2 -2

6 6
Others Others Others
Trace from 1 to 7 -4 Trace from 1 to 7 Trace from 1 to 7
-4 -4
-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2
δx(mm) δy(mm) Vx(kN)

(d) Behavior of column C9 under 0.154 XY

(e) Behavior of wall (C6-C7)

Fig. 13 (continued)

The seismic evaluation of the building model according to KBC 2005 (IBC 2000)
suggests that this model would fail under the design earthquake, thus contradicting the
test results. The main reason for this contradiction is attributed to the overly high over-
strength factor of 3. It would be reasonable to reduce the over-strength factor from 3 to
2 and to apply this factor only to the axial force with the exception of the shear and
flexural moments.

22
 2.5 1:5-scale 5-story RC building model strengthened with BRBs at ground story

In a 1:5 scale model of a low-rise RC apartment building having a high degree of

irregularity regarding the weak/soft story and torsion at the ground story, the ground-
story columns were strengthened with FRP sheets, to avoid brittle collapse due to
shear failure followed by axial compression failure, and the outer frames at the ground
story were infilled with BRB’s, to increase the stiffness, strength, and energy dissipation
capacity within the allowed range of lateral drift. To verify the effectiveness of this
strengthening, a series of earthquake simulation tests were conducted before and after
the strengthening, and these test results are compared and analyzed, to check the
effectiveness of the strengthening. (Lee et al. 2013)

Y Y

X3 X3
BRB
FRP sheet

4500
4500

CS
es=52.3mm CS es=1,550mm
e

es
X2 X2

9500
9500

X (16.3%) X
(0.551%) CM CM
5000
5000

UP UP
BRB BRB

X1 X1
5100 2700 5100 5100 2700 5100
12900 12900
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4

(a) Plan of the ground story in original (left) and strengthened prototypes (right)

(b) Instrumentation
1.2
KBC2005 (DE)
R0.187XY, X-dir.
Spectral Accel. (Sa)

0.9 R0.187XY, Y-dir.

KBC2005 (MCE)
R0.3XY, X-dir.
0.6 R0.3XY, Y-dir.
MCE(R=1, IE=1)
0.3
DE(R=1, IE=1)

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (sec)

(c) Overview of shaking table test setup (d) Elastic design and table response spectra
Fig. 14 1:5-scale 5-story RC building model strengthened with BRBs at ground story
(strengthened model) (Lee et al. 2013; Lee and Hwang, 2014)

23
 The earthquake simulation tests of the strengthened model were carried out at
the Seismic Simulation Test Center at Pusan National University, Korea, in 2010 (Fig.
14(c)). The experimental set-up and instrumentation to measure the displacements,
accelerations, and forces for the second series of tests are similar to those of the first
series of tests, and are shown in Fig. 14(b).
The target or input accelerogram of the table was based on the recorded 1952 Taft
N21E (X direction) and Taft S69E (Y direction) components, and was formulated by
compressing the time axis with a scale factor of 1/√5, and by adjusting the peak ground
acceleration (PGA), to match the corresponding elastic design spectrum in KBC 2005. First,
the test was performed with the table excitations in only one direction (X direction), and the
consecutive test was conducted in the two orthogonal directions (X and Y directions), for
each level of earthquake intensity. The strengthened model was tested not only up to the
levels of maximum considered earthquake (MCE) in Korea, but also to the level of the
design earthquake in San Francisco, USA. Because the shake-table test of the original
model was carried out up to the level of the design earthquake in Korea, and the original
model did not reach the maximum yield strength, this study dealt with only the seismic
responses of the strengthened model. The program of earthquake simulation tests on the
strengthened model is summarized in Table 9. The designation and significance of each
earthquake simulation test is provided in the table. Elastic response spectra are given in Fig.
14(d) for DE, MCE, and shake-table output. Generally, the shake-table outputs simulated the
DE and MCE well, except for the output of the X directional acceleration under R0.187XY.

Table 9. Test program (X-Taft N21E, Y-Taft S69E)

Intended PGA(g) Measured PGA(g) Return period in Korea
Test designation
X-dir. Y-dir. X-dir. Y-dir. (year)
R0.070X 0.07 - 0.083 -
50
R0.070XY 0.07 0.08 0.072 0.097
R0.154X 0.154 - 0.132 -
500
R0.154XY 0.154 0.177 0.123 0.186
R0.187X 0.187 - 0.174 -
Design earthquake (DE)
R0.187XY 0.187 0.215 0.147 0.220
R0.3 X 0.3 - 0.261 -
2400 (MCE)
R0.3 XY 0.3 0.345 0.250 0.374
R0.4 X 0.4 - 0.329 -
DE in San Francisco, USA
R0.4 XY 0.4 0.46 0.442 0.509

The concept of Buckling Restrained Braces (BRB’s) is to use an inner core

artificially designed to yield prematurely in compression and tension, enclosed by
strong buckling restraining braces, thereby to dissipate large seismic input energy,
within the allowed range of displacement. This concept has attracted wide interest, and
has been applied to many new constructions and the seismic retrofitting of existing
steel structures. However, despite this advantage in concept, there have been many
problems to be solve d in the detailed design, such as joints with connected members.
The study conducted herein again revealed the detail problems in adoption of BRB’s
into the existing RC frames: The BRB’s showed significant slippage at the joint with the
existing RC beam, up-lift of columns from RC foundations, foundation deformation due
to the flexibility of the foundation itself, all of which finally led to failure, due to the

24
buckling of base joint angles. Because of these factors, the value of lateral stiffness of
the RC frame strengthened with BRB’s and FRP sheets appeared to be as low as one
seventh of the intended value. This low stiffness led to a large yield displacement, and
therefore the BRB’s could not dissipate seismic input energy as desired within the
range of anticipated displacement. The rigidity of connections between the existing
concrete member and the BRB’s, and the rigidity of columns in tension and the
foundation should be investigated systematically in the future to ensure the successful
application of BRB’s to the existing RC building structures.
Although, the strengthened model did not behave as desired, it showed great
enhancement in earthquake resistance, not only under the maximum considered
earthquake in a low-to-moderate seismicity region, such as Korea, but also under the
intensity level of design earthquake in a strong seismic region, such as San Francisco
(Fig. 15(a)). The followings are some important seismic behaviors of the strengthened
model, which have contributed to this enhanced earthquake resistance:

 The strengthened model revealed the tendency of bias towards axial compression in
the wall, regardless of the uni- or bi- directional excitation. The reason is considered to
be elongation of the wall caused by lateral drift, and the constraint to this elongation
provided by the peripheral BRB frames, which were absent in the original model. This
increase of the axial compressive force in the walls means an increase of the bending
moment capacity, which leads to a significant (approximately 50%) increase in the
lateral resistance of the wall (Fig. 15(b)). In Fig. 15(c) the strengthened model had
the curve of base shear versus story drift at the first story that showed the first
significant yielding under design earthquake (R0.187XY), and inelastic behavior
with large energy dissipation under the maximum considered earthquake (R0.3XY).
However, the maximum IDR’s for R0.187XY and R0.3XY in the X direction were
0.296% and 0.854%, respectively, which were within the allowable limit of 1.5% for
the limit state of life safety.
 Base torsion was resisted by both the inner core wall, and the peripheral frames in
the original model in Fig. 13(c), up to the design earthquake in Korea (0.154XY). In
contrast, the strengthened model resisted most of the base torsion with the
peripheral frames, after yielding of the inner core walls. In Fig. 15(d), the model
represented dual values of stiffness, of 50MN/rad when the core walls did not yield,
and 30MN/rad when the core wall did yield.
 The eccentricity varied from zero to infinity, with the variation of the torsional moment and
the two orthogonal base shears (Fig. 15(e)). As the intensity of table excitations increased,
representing earthquakes with return periods from 50 to 2500 years in Korea, the range of
the eccentricities at the time instants of peak values in the time histories of drift and base
shear decreased from approximately ±30% to within ±10% of the transverse dimension of
the model (Fig. 15(f)). The inertial torque was resisted by both longitudinal and transverse
frames, in proportion to their instantaneous rigidity. In particular, when the longitudinal
frames had yielded, over 90% of the inertial torsion was resisted by the transverse frames,
which manifests the reason for the tendency to the lower eccentricity with the increase of
intensity of excitations (Fig. 15(g)).
 Under severe table excitations representing MCE in Korea, the inertial torque varied from
–23.1kNm (instant (a)) to +27.9kNm (instant (2)) and the eccentricity varied from 3.7% to

25
 0.01% with the yielding base shear, 106kN, being almost constant for a short duration
from 3.04s to 3.11s. The small eccentricity of 0.01% did not necessarily translate into a
small but significantly large rotation (0.00173rad) leading to the maximum drift (6.2mm) at
the edge frame due to a high level of inertial torque (27.9kNm) and a significantly
degraded torsional stiffness caused by yielding of the longitudinal frames. It is clear that
the eccentricity in itself cannot represent the critical torsional behaviors. To overcome this
problem, the demand in torque shall be determined in a direct relationship with the base or
story shear, given as an ellipse constructed with the maximum points in its principal axes
located by the two adjacent torsion-dominant modal spectral values as shown in Fig. 15(h).
This approach provides a simple, but transparent design tool by enabling comparison
between demand and supply in shear force-torque diagrams.

Y C6-C7 Wall (X-dir) C2-C6 Wall (Y-dir)

X3
C9 C10 C11
(c)
X2 C5 C6 C7 C8 X
(b) (d)
X1 C1 C2 C3 C4
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4

(a) Crack patterns after R0.4XY

320 320 320 320
Max. Axial force 285.4kN
280 280 280 280
Min. Axial force P=180.8kN
240 240 240
M=39.5kNm P=159.8kN
240
Axial force(kN)
Axial force(kN)

Axial force(kN)
Axial force(kN)

200 200 200 M=55.9kNm 200

165.3kN 159.2kN 2
160 160 160
160
5
120 120 120 120
80 80 80 80
40 40 40 40
33.2kN 0 38.7kN 0 3 0
0
0.154XY -40
R0.187XY 7.4kN R0.3XY -22.5kN R0.4XY
-40 -40 -40
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Moment(kNm) Moment(kNm) Moment(kNm) Moment(kNm)

200 200 200 200

150 150 150 150
100 100 100 2 100
77.1kN
Base shear(kN)
Base shear(kN)

Base shear(kN)

Base shear(kN)

50 50 50 50
0 0 0 0
-50 -50 -50 3 -50
-100 -100 -100 5 -100
-150 -150 -150 92.8kN -150
0.154XY R0.187XY R0.3XY R0.4XY
-200 -200 -200 -200
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Inter-stroy drift(mm) Inter-stroy drift(mm) Inter-stroy drift(mm) Inter-stroy drift(mm)

(b) P-M interaction diagram and relation of base shear versus drift in wall C6-C7 (Wall X2)

(c) Response histories of interstory drift ratio versus base shear

Fig.15 Shake-table test results of 1:5-scale 5-story strengthened model
(Lee et al. 2013 and Lee and Hwang 2014)

26
 75 75
Torsional M (kNm)

Torsional M (kNm)
R0.07XY R0.3XY 30 MNm/rad
50 50
50 MNm/rad 50 MNm/rad
25 25 (2)
0 0 (4)
a
-25 -25 Total
-50 -50 2.5s to 3.5s
-75 a to (2)
-75
-0.003 -0.0015 0 0.0015 0.003 -0.003 -0.0015 0 0.0015 0.003
Torsional deformation (rad) Torsional deformation (rad)
(d) Dual values of torsional stiffness
150 150
Torsional moment (kNm)

Torsional moment (kNm)

100 C 100 D
D
B E
E C
50 50
F
Vx×(estatic±10%) B
0 0 Vx×estatic
Vx×estatic
G A
-50 -50
F A Vx×(estatic±10%) H b
b J
-100 H Elastic -100 Elastic
Ttotal, Vx G Yield I Yield
Ttotal, Vy
Tx, Vx R0.3XY Ty, Vy R0.3XY
-150 -150
-300 -150 0 150 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
X-dir. Base shear, Vx (kN) Y-dir. Base shear, Vy (kN)

(e) BST yield surface versus V-T response histories

30% 30% 30%
±15kN ±30kN ±50kN
ey

A±10%: 72% A±10%: 100% A±10%: 100%

15% A±5%: 56% 15% A±5%: 68% 15% A±5%: 88%
Eccentricity,

Average: 7.2% Average: 5.6% Average: 5.6%

ey
ey

0% 0%
ey

0%

-15% -15% -15%

SLE R0.070XY
DE R0.187XY
MCE R0.3XY
-30% -30% -30%
-200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200 -200 -100 0 100 200
X-dir. Base shear (kN) X-dir. Base shear (kN) X-dir. Base shear (kN)

(f) Distribution of eccentricities (ey=Tx/Vx) at instants of peak base shear

0.002 60 60 60 0.004
R0.070XY SLE DE MCE (6)
R0.3XY
(2)
0.001 30 30 30 0.002
(4)
θT (rad)

Ty (kNm)

θT (rad)
Ty (kNm)

Ty (kNm)

(3)
0 0 0 0 0
a
-0.001 -30 -30 -30 b (1) -0.002
(5)
δx1-θt R0.070XY R0.187XY R0.3XY δx1-θt
-0.002 -60 -60 -60 -0.004
-2 -1 0 1 2 -60 -30 0 30 60 -60 -30 0 30 60 -60 -30 0 30 60 -8 -4 0 4 8
δx (mm) Tx (kNm) Tx (kNm) Tx (kNm) δx1 (mm)
40 130
R0.070XY R0.3XY (3)
(1)
20 65
(5)
Vx (kN)

Vx (kN)

0 0 b
(6)

-20 -65
(4)
(2) a
-40 -130
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
δx (mm) δx (mm)

(g) Relation of torsional moments contributed by X- and Y-directional frames

Fig. 15 (continued)

27
 30 30 30 30

Torsional moment (kNm)

Torsional moment (kNm)

Torsional moment (kNm)
Ttotal-Vx Tx-Vx Ttotal-Vy Ty-Vy
Story torque Demand
TM (kNm)

15 15 15 15

0 0
ey = - 7.8 %
0
Capacity 0
Ellipse
-15 -15 -15 (Supply) -15
with two adjacent
Mode 1
-30
Mode 1
-40 -20 0 20
-30
40 -40 -20 0 20
-30
40 -40
Mode 1
-20 0
‐ BST or SST
20
-30
40 -40
Mode 1
-20 0 20 40 torsion-dominant
30 30 30 30
Torsional moment (kNm)

Torsional moment (kNm)

Torsional moment (kNm)

Ttotal-Vx Base shear (kN) Tx-Vx Base shear (kN)
yield surfaces
Ttotal-Vy Base shear (kN) T -V Base shear (kN) y y
modal spectral
TM (kNm)

15 15 15 15

0 0 0 0
values.
ey = 21.5 %
-15 -15 -15 -15

Mode 2 Mode 2 Mode 2 Mode 2

-30 -30 -30 -30
30 -40 -20 0 20 30 -40
40 -20 0 20

Torsional moment (kNm)

40 -40
30 -20 0 20 40
30 -40 -20 0 20 40
Story

Torsional moment (kNm)

Torsional moment (kNm)

Base shear (kN) Ttotal-Vx Tx-Vx ey = 0 ~ ∞

Base shear (kN) Ttotal-Vy Base shear (kN) Ty-Vy Base shear (kN)
TM (kNm)

15 15 15 15

0 0
16.70 s 16.41 s
0 0
shear force
-15 -15 -15 -15

Mode 1+2 Mode 1+2 Mode 1+2 Mode 1+2

-30 -30 -30 -30 First modal
40
-40 -20 0 20 40 -40
40
-20 0 20 40 -40
40
-20 0 20 40 -40
40
-20 0 20 Second
40 modal
spectral values
Torsional moment (kNm)

Torsional moment (kNm)

Torsional moment (kNm)

Ttotal-Vx Base shear (kN) Tx-Vx Base shear (kN) Ttotal-Vy Base shear (kN) Ty-Vy Base shear (kN)
spectral values
TM (kNm)

20 20 20 20

0 0 0 0

-20 -20 -20 -20

EXP. (LC) EXP. (LC) EXP. (LC) EXP. (LC)
All modes ANAL. All modes ANAL. All modes ANAL. All modes ANAL.
-40 -40 -40 -40
-40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40
Base shear (kN) Base shear (kN) Base shear (kN) Base shear (kN)

(h) Demand and supply in shear force-torque diagrams

Fig. 15 (continued)

2.6 1:5-scale 10-story RC Box-type Wall Building Structure Model

The number of apartment housing units is more than 58% of the total number of
housing units in Korea (KNSO 2010). These residential apartment buildings such as
shown in Fig. 2(b) generally consist of high-rise reinforced concrete (RC) wall
structures, and should be designed and constructed to resist the earthquake according
to Korea Building Code (AIK 2005), and existing buildings not satisfying these codes
should be evaluated and retrofitted. These high-rise wall-type or box-type structural
systems are defined as a bearing wall system in the code, but the style of these RC
structures is unique around the world and the seismic performance of these structures
has been investigated with due interest, neither in Korea nor abroad, except a few
studies. A 1:5 scale 10-story RC wall-type building model representative of these
residential buildings was constructed (Hwang el al. 2011) considering the capacity of
the largest shaking table available in Korea. Then, the seismic performance of the high-
rise residential building model is evaluated based on the results of earthquake
simulation tests (Lee et al., 2012).
The prototype for the experiment was chosen to represent the most typical design
in Korea. The floor area of one dwelling unit is 89m 2 and one story accommodates two
family units, while the number of stories is 10 as shown in Fig. 16(a). The prototype
was designed according to the old design code of Korea, AIK2000. The thickness of
walls is 180mm or 160mm with that of slabs being 200mm. The ratio of wall cross
sectional area to building floor plan area, Aw/Af, are 2.67% and 4.71% in the X and Y
directions, respectively. Considering the capacity of the available shaking table and the
feasibility of model reinforcements, a 1:5 scale 10–story building model was chosen.
Fig. 17(a) compares design spectra as per KBC 2005 and response spectra obtained
using the output accelerograms of shaking table excitations. The response spectra for
the shake table output corresponding to the Design Earthquake (DE) and the Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) simulate well the design spectra.

28
 Roof
10F 2.7m

9F 2.7m

8F 2.7m

7F 2.7m

6F 2.7m 27 m
5F
2.7m (10-story)

4F
2.7m

3F
2.7m

2F
2.7m

G.L. 2.7m

(a) Plan and elevation of prototype building

(b) Plan and elevation of 1:5 scale model

Splice
Slab Slab

Splice

Footing
Section A-A’ Section B-B’
(c) Details of the wall in 1:5 scale model (sections A-A’ and B-B’ in (b))
LVDTs Steel blocks Steel blocks LVDTs

D15,D16,D29 A1 A2 A13 A14 D1, D2

Accelerometer
D17,D18 A3 A4 A15 A16 D3, D4

D19,D20 A5 A6 A17 A18 D5, D6

D21,D22,D27 A7 A8 A19 A20 D7, D8

D23,D24 D9, D10
D30 A9 A10 A21 A22 D13
D25,D26 A11 A12 Loadcell A23 A24 D11, D12

D28 D14
Shaking Table Shaking Table
Independent Post Independent Post
Reference Frame Reference Frame
View A View B

(d) Instrumentations and overview of shaking table test setup

Fig.16 1:5-scale 10-story RC Box-type Wall Building Structure model (Lee et al, 2012)

29
 Table 10. Test program a 1:5-scale 10-story wall-type building model
Intended PGA (g) Input PGA (g) Output PGA (g)
Return Periods
Test (True replica model) (Distorted model) (Distorted model)
in Korea (years)
X-dir. Y-dir. X-dir. Y-dir. X-dir. Y-dir.
0.07X 0.07 – 0.140 – 0.172 – 50
0.07Y – 0.0805 – 0.161 – 0.152 (Serviceability Level EQ.,
0.07XY 0.07 0.0805 0.140 0.161 0.137 0.142 SLE)
0.187X 0.187 – 0.374 – 0.292 –
Design EQ. (DE)
0.187XY 0.187 0.216 0.374 0.431 0.316 0.450
0.3X 0.3 – 0.60 – 0.523 – 2400 (Maximum
0.3XY 0.3 0.346 0.60 0.691 0.525 0.643 Considered EQ., MCE)

The experimental and analytical results of a 1:5 scale 10–story building model are as follows:

 The experimental and analytical models possessed a large overstrength (Fig. 17(c)). Under
the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) in Korea, the maximum base shear coefficients
of the experiment and the analysis are 0.206 and 0.17 in the X direction, respectively, and
0.272 and 0.30 in the Y direction, respectively, which are 2.5~3.0 times larger than the design
seismic coefficients, Cs, respectively. In the results of the static pushover analyses, the
overstrength of the model with slabs, Ω, which is defined as the ratio of the maximum strength
of the fully-yielded system to the design seismic coefficients, is 3.22 in the X direction and 4.2
in the Y direction. In the capacity curves, the lateral strength dropped suddenly after the point
of the peak resistance due to the shear failure in the Y-directional outer walls. The
overstrength of the model is larger than the value of the overstrength factor, 2.5, given in KBC
2005 and IBC 2000. In Fig. 17(d), under the DE in Korea, the maximum interstory drift ratio
(IDR) in the analytical results is 0.331% in the 6th story in the X direction and 0.195% in the 7th
story in the Y direction. It is comparable to that of test results, 0.307% in the 5th to 6th stories in
the X direction and 0.252% in the 9th to 10th stories in the Y direction, which satisfy the
allowable interstory drift ratio of 1.5% imposed by KBC 2005 (IBC 2000).
1.2 0.5
Base shear coefficient (Cs)

KBC2005 (DE)
Spectra acceleration (Sa)

DE (R=1.0, IE=1.0)
1 Output (Taft 0.187g X-dir.) Ta,y-dir. = 0.184s
Output (Taft 0.187g Y-dir.) 0.4 Ta,x-dir. = 0.273s
0.8 KBC2005 (MCE)
Output (Taft 0.3g X-dir.) 0.3 Y-dir.
0.6 Output (Taft 0.3g Y-dir.) 0.3
MCE 0.2 0.154 0.187 X-dir.
0.4 DE (R=4.5, IE=1.2) 0.3
DE (R=1.0, IE=1.0) 0.07 0.187 Csy = 0.108
0.1 0.154
0.2 0.07 Csx = 0.072
Distorted model 0.035 (Design values)
0.035
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Period (sec) Period (sec)
(a) Design and shake-table response spectra (b) Test results with the design spectra
0.35 0.6SB, flexible-base SB, flexible-base
Base shear / Building weight

Base shear / Building weight

X-dir. (+) Y-dir. (+)

SB, fixed-base SB, fixed-base
0.3 0.5NS, flexible-base NS, flexible-base
NS, fixed-base NS, fixed-base
0.25 Experiment under MCE
0.4
0.2 Ω = 3.22 Analysis under MCE
0.3 Analysis under
0.15 Concepcion EQ.

0.1 Ω = 2.4 0.2

Ω = 4.2 Ω = 3.36 Steel, ε = 0.002m/m
Concrete, ε = 0.002m/m
0.05 Cs, design = 0.072 0.1 Concrete, εc,ult = 0.006m/m
Cs, design = 0.108 Shear stress degradation
0 0 in wall, ε = 0.01m/m
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125 0.015
Roof drift (ratio) Roof drift (ratio)

(c) Capacity curves

Fig. 17 Shake-table test results of 1:5-scale 10-story RC Box-type Wall Building
Structure model (Lee et al. 2012)

30
 11
Roof Flexible-
11
Roof Flexible- Model SB, Flexible-base Model SB, Fixed-base
DE DE Instant: 2.31s (max. roof drift (-X)) Instant: 2.28s (max. roof drift (-X))
in Korea base in Korea base
Fixed- Fixed- under MCE in Korea under MCE in Korea
9 (X-dir.) 9 (Y-dir.)
base base
Exp. Exp.
7 7
Floor

Floor
5 5

3 3

1 1
-0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6
Drift (%) Drift (%)

(d) Envelope of interstory drift under DE Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4Y5 Y6Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10

11
Roof 11
Roof 5 5
-0.13 0.10 -0.13 0.10 Flexible-base Y2 Fixed-base Y2
MCE Y4 MCE Y4
9 9 in Korea Y7 in Korea Y7
4 (2.31s) Y9 4 (2.28s) Y9

7 7
Floor

Floor

Floor

Floor
3 3
Flexible- Flexible-
5 base 5 base
Fixed- Fixed-
DE DE 2 2
3 base 3 base
in Korea Footing in Korea Footing -0.00119 0.00215 -0.00089 0.00211
(X-dir.) Rotation (X-dir.) Rotation
1 1 1 1
-0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 -0.003 -0.0015 0 0.0015 0.003 -0.003 -0.0015 0 0.0015 0.003
Drift (%) Drift (%) Axial Strain (m/m) Axial Strain (m/m)

(e) Lateral drift ratio with respect to the base at (f) Distribution of plastic hinges and axial strain
the time instant of maximum roof drift of inner walls in Frame X4 under MCE
700 243kNm
(52.0%) 467 kNm (B: 1.80sec) Model SB
350
OTM (kNm)

0
-278kNm
-350 Total OTM (Inertia)
(49.6%)
OTM due to T/C coupling
-700 -561 kNm (A: 1.63 sec)
700 0 2 4 6 8 10
65.5kNm Time (sec) Model NS
350 (19.6%) 335 kNm (2.0 sec)
OTM (kNm)

0
-75.5kNm
-350(19.9%) Total OTM (Inertia)
-380 kNm (1.67 sec) OTM due to T/C coupling
-700
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (sec)

(g) Relations of hysteretic curves between base (h) Time history of overturning moment
shear and roof drift under DE and MCE

Roof

Third
Floor

upper
side

(i) Crack patterns in slabs and exterior walls

Fig. 17 (continued)

31
 The model with slabs is governed by the membrane action due to the coupling
effect of the web wall to the flange wall, which is one reason for a large
overstrength. In the model with slabs, the coupling behavior of walls covers
approximately 40~50% of the total overturning moment (Fig. 17(h)). The test results
show that outer walls have many horizontal cracks at the lower stories subjected to
a large membrane force (Fig. 17(i)). In the analytical model, the axial strains of wall
boundaries at various locations are measured. Under the maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) in Korea, the maximum axial strain demands of the wall
boundaries in the lower part of the first story are within 0.006m/m in tension and
0.0012m/m in compression (Fig. 17(h)). The tensile strains in the outer walls are
larger than the value of steel yield strain, 0.002m/m, which are consistent with the
horizontal cracks in the experiment. The probability of the damage due to the
concrete crushing and rebar buckling is very low under the MCE in Korea.
 The analytical models ignoring the flexibility of foundation and the flexural rigidity of
the slab have been widely used by engineers in practice for the analysis of the
building structure. In this study, it was shown that the fixed-base condition
significantly increases the initial stiffness with the shortened fundamental period,
and decreases the lateral drift (Fig. 17(e)). When inelastic behavior occurs, the ratio
of the amounts of dissipated energy in the wall, slab, and coupling beam in the
flexible-base model is approximately 7:2:1, whereas that in the fixed-base model is
about 8:1.2:0.8 showing that the fixed-base model increases the dissipated inelastic
energy in the wall with decreasing those in the slab and coupling beam. In the
model without the slab which do not participate in the lateral resistance, the initial
stiffness and maximum strength representing the global responses are reduced to
approximately half of the model with slab. The slab increases the tension and
compression coupling actions resulting in a large membrane force of the wall, and
the strength of the model with slab are 25~35% larger than that without slabs. For
the design, therefore, the analytical model of the RC box-type wall building structure,
which neglect the flexibility of foundation and the flexural rigidity of the slab, should
be avoided for reliable seismic design.

2.7 1:5-scale 9-story Piloti-Type RC Residential Building Structure Model

Since the beginning of the industrialization, many multi-purpose buildings have been
constructed to solve the housing problem in the densely populated areas in Korea. As a
representative multi-purpose building, there is the piloti-type apartment building using the
bearing-wall system for the upper apartments and the frame system for the lower open
spaces. This type of structure is usually designed with transfer beam or transfer plate since
many of the upper bearing walls discontinue at the lower stories. Moreover, core walls or
additional lateral- force-resisting vertical element such as shear walls would be placed on
the plan of the piloti story. The principal drawback in this type of structure is the abrupt
change in the lateral stiffness and strength at the piloti story. This creates a soft story and
torsional eccentricity. The structural irregularity can become a major source of damage
during the extreme earthquake. Furthermore, overturning moment due to the lateral forces
at the upper bearing wall induces critical axial force leading to collapse of the supporting
members. However, these mechanisms of the piloti-type building structures under the

32
 extreme earthquake are not fully investigated up to the present. Therefore, a 1:5 scale 9-
story piloti-type RC residential building model was constructed considering the capacity
of the largest shaking table available in Korea. Then, the seismic response of the piloti-
type residential building model is investigated based on the results of earthquake
simulation tests. (Lee et al. 2013) It is a 9-story piloti-type RC building, and the floor area
of one dwelling unit is 89m2 and one story accommodates two dwelling units. The ground
story consists of core walls and exterior frames with columns and infilled walls, and the
2nd to 9th story have box-type wall structures. The height of the ground story is 3.9m
with those of upper stories being 2.7m, and the thickness of the transfer plate is 1.5m.

ii. Underpinning of transfer iii. Removal of exterior

plate walls

i. 10-story residential iv. Foundation v. Rebars for columns and vi. Completed 9-story
model infilled walls model
(a) Remodeling of a damaged 10-story model to a 9-story piloti-type model

Column Column
Bed
kitchen E/V Shear wall
Elevator
room

Bathroom

Bed Living
Stair case
room room

(b) Typical plan (c) Piloti plan

(a) Elevation (d) Detail of column and infilled wall (detail of single column is equal to the column with infilled wall.)
(b) Detail of a 1:5 scale piloti-type model (unit: mm)
LVDTs Steel blocks Accelerometer

D11,D12,D13 A1 A2 A12 A13 D1,D2

Portion A Portion B Portion C

23 24 29 30
D14,D15 A3 A4 A14 A15 D3,D4
25 26
view A 27 28

Elevator Hall Column 3

D16,D17 A5 A6 A16 A17 D5,D6
view B Reference Frame
21 22
19 20
D18,D19,D20 A7 A8 A18 A19 D7,D8 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18
Independent post
view C D21,D22
D23 Column + Column 2
A9 A10 A20 A21 D9,D10 Shear Wall Stair Case
D25
view D 9 10
Load Cell
view E D26 A11 A22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D24
Shaking Table Shaking Table
Column view AView A View B view B 1~30: No. Load Cell Column 1

(c) Instrumentations
(a) Lateral displacement and accelerometer

②
Elevator Hall
Fig. 18 1:5-scale 9-story piloti-type RC residential
Column 3
RC1 building structure model (Lee et al, 2013)
Column + Shear Wall

Table 11. Test programs of a Column

④ Transfer plate
1:5-scale 9-story piloti-type building model
a a RC2 RC4
①
Column 2
③
Stair Case
Column RC3

Column 1
a – a section
1~30 : No. Load Cell
①~④: No. Portion

(b) Load cell (c) Rotational deformation of column

33
DA21 DA21
DS13
DS13
DS14
DS14
DA22 DA22

DA4 DA5 DA3 DA3 DA2 DA2 DA1 DA1

 Peak ground acceleration(g)
Return Period in
Test X-dir. (N21E) Y-dir. (S69E)
Korea (Year)
Input Output Input Output
0.140X 0.126 0.158 - -
50
0.140XY 0.126 0.110 0.134 0.141
0.374X 0.337 0.291 - - Design Earthquake
0.374XY 0.337 0.300 0.359 0.390 (DE)
0.60X 0.541 0.469 - -
2400 (MCE)
0.60XY 0.541 0.493 0.575 0.605

The model was constructed by retrofitting the 10-story model which had already
underwent a series of earthquake simulation tests (Lee el al. 2012) in Fig. 18(a)-i. Slab on
the third story of the 10-story model was bored, and the reinforcement for the transfer plate
was placed and the form work was installed for all the sides of third story and next
concrete was poured through the hole of the floor of the third story. After gaining concrete
strength in the transfer plate, the gravity load above the transfer plate was supported by
the temporary underpinning support as shown in Fig. 18(a)-ii. Then, the first story and half
of the second story were remodeled as the first-story of the 9-story piloti-type building
whose plan is shown in Fig. 18(b). Due to the previous earthquake simulation tests on the
10-story model, members such as all the slabs along the height of the model, first-story
elevator-hall walls and the stair landing had severe cracks, thus, those members were
retrofitted by using CFRP’s to enhance the seismic performance (Fig. 18(a)-vi).
The input accelerogram for earthquake simulation tests was based on the recorded
1952 Taft accelerograms (N21E, S69E) in Table 11. To measure lateral drifts and
accelerations, displacement transducers and accelerometers were installed at the transfer
plate, fourth, sixth, eighth floor and roof, as shown in Fig. 18(c). Load cells were installed
beneath the footings to measure two directional shear forces and the axial force.

There are the test results of a 1:5 scale 9–story piloti-type building model as follows:

 In Fig. 19(b), the fundamental periods given by the empirical equation of KBC 2005,
0.274 sec and 0.184 sec in the X- and Y- directions, respectively, seems to match
approximately the test results: the virgin fundamental periods were 0.212 sec and
0.198 sec in the X- and Y- directions, respectively. The relation between the base
shear coefficient and the roof drift reveals the over-strength under the maximum
considered earthquake in Korea being approximately 3.6 in the X-direction and 2.4 in
the Y-direction, respectively, when compared with the design seismic load, as shown
in Fig. 19(c). The maximum inter-story drift ratio did not occur in the ground (piloti) story,
but in the forth to eighth stories. In Fig. 19(d) the maximum inter-story drift ratios (IDRs)
are 0.61% in the X direction and 0.51% in the Y direction under the design earthquake
in Korea. These IDR’s are smaller than the IDR limit, 1.5%, given in KBC 2005.

34
 1.2 0.5
Elastic, Sc, DE (KBC 2005) MCE (R=1.0, IE=1.0)

Base shear coefficient, Cs

Spectral acceleration, Sa (g)

Elastic, Sc, MCE (KBC 2005)

Ta, y-dir.=0.184s (Other str.)
Output (Taft 0.374g X-dir.) 0.4 Ta, x-dir.=0.273s
0.8 Output (Taft 0.374g Y-dir.) (MRF)
Output (Taft 0.60g X-dir.) 0.3 Y-dir. X-dir.
Output (Taft 0.60g Y-dir.) 0.80g 0.80g
0.60g 0.60g
MCE (R=1.0, IE=1.0) 0.2
0.4 DE (R=1.0, IE=1.0) 0.374g
DE (R=1.0, IE=1.0) 0.374g
0.1

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Period (sec) Period (sec)

(a) Design and response spectra (b) Test results with the design spectra
0.8 0.8
Max. base shear (X) Max. base shear (X)
Base shear coefficient, Cs

Base shear coefficient, Cs

Max. roof drift (X) Ω=3.11 Max. roof drift (X) Ω=2.07
KBC2005 (RC MRF) 0.8g KBC2005 (Other structures) 0.8g
0.4 0.6g 0.4
0.374g 0.6g
CS,Design= 0.14 0.374g
CS,Design= 0.22
0 0

-0.4 -0.4
Ω=3.63 Ω=2.42
X-dir. Y-dir.
-0.8 -0.8
-32 -16 0 16 32 -32 -16 0 16 32
Roof drift (mm) Roof drift (mm)

(c) Relations between maximum Cs and roof drift

-1.5% 1.5% -1.5% 1.5%
Roof Roof

8 8
0.51% 0.81%
6 6
Story

Story

-0.75% 0.61% -0.67%

0.87%
4 4

2 0.140XY 2 0.140XY
0.374XY 0.374XY
X-dir. 0.60XY Y-dir. 0.60XY

-0.016 -0.008 0 0.008 0.016 -0.016 -0.008 0 0.008 0.016

(a) Upperside of 3rd floor slab cracks of residential building model
Interstory drift ratio (mm/mm) Interstory drift ratio (mm/mm)

(d) Envelope of Interstory drift ratio (e) Cracks of slab

120%
Stiffness degradation

Total Piloti 2nd story

100%

80%

60% 60%
52%
X-dir. 51%
(b) Downside of 3rd floor slab cracks of piloti-type
40% building model
0.14XY 0.374XY 0.6XY 0.8XY
120%
Stiffness degradation

Total Piloti 2nd story

100%

80% 83%

60% 56%
59%
Y-dir.
40%
0.14XY 0.374XY 0.6XY 0.8XY
120%
(c) Slab cracks (d) Attachment of cracksTotal
between Piloti
Stiffness degradation

2nd story
coupling lintel beams
100%

80% 75%
72%
60%
Torsion 48%
40%
0.14XY 0.374XY 0.6XY 0.8XY

(f) Crack patterns of outer wall (g) Stiffness degradation

5 Middle Left Right
Transfer plate

200
(kNm)

0.374XY, Y-dir. Total (LC) Contribution by stiff side

M. drift

Stiff 2.5
100
(mm)

side
00
story
Torsional

-2.5
-100
0.6XY
-5
-200
70 81 92 10
3 11
4
(h) Contribution of torsional moment by the stiff side with infill wall (0.6XY)
Fig. 19 Shake-table test results of 1:5-scale 9-story piloti-type RC residential building
structure model (Lee et al. 2013)

35
 The cracks of slab in the 10-story residential model on the precedent study were
concentrated across the long-span and along the slab-wall joint in the Y direction as
shown in Fig. 19(e). In contrast with the 10-story model, the cracks of the slabs in the
9-story piloti model were occurred in vicinity of exterior frames and above the coupling
beams. Fig. 19(f) shows the development of cracks in the Y-directional exterior frames
for each test. A number of horizontal cracks were observed on these structure, not only
at the piloti story but also at the stories above the transfer plate. Such results are
similar to those in Li and Lam’s study (2006), in which significant cracks and damage
at the stories above the transfer plate were observed. Infilled walls did not reveal
horizontal cracks as observed in the upper walls, but local cracks were observed at the
boundaries with the columns and the transfer plate.
 Fig. 19(g) shows stiffness degradation for the three groups: the total structure, the
ground (piloti) story, and the 2nd story. Assuming that the stiffness under 0.14XY
showing elastic behaviour is the initial stiffness (100%), stiffnesses at test level of
0.374XY, 0.60XY, and 0.80XY are presented as a percentage to the initial stiffness. In
the X-direction, the stiffness degradations for the three groups are similar to each other,
and the total stiffness under 0.80XY is 52% of the initial stiffness. In the Y-direction, the
stiffness for the total structure, the piloti story, and the 2nd story under 0.80XY are 45%,
56%, and 83% of the corresponding initial stiffnesses, respectively. For the
degradation of the torsional stiffness, and the percentages of the stiffness for the total
structure and piloti story under 0.80XY are approximately 75% while the stiffness for
the second story is 48% of the initial stiffness.
 Fig. 19(h) shows the contribution of the Y-directional exterior frame with infilled wall to
the total torsional moment under 0.60XY obtained from load cells through the time
histories. Most of the torsional moment is resisted by the exterior frame with infilled
walls, and the torsional moments resisted by the core wall and exterior frame without
infilled walls are very little.

2.8 1:15-scale 25-story RC Flat-Plate Core-Wall Building Model

Recently, the number of high-rise buildings (higher than 30 stories) has been
increasing, for the efficient use of available housing site. For these high-rise buildings, a
combined system of core shear walls: a lateral load resistance structural system, and
flat-plates: a gravity load resistance structural system, has been widely used. These
structural types in current seismic provisions, KBC2009 and IBC2006, are classified as
dual frame or building frame system. For the shear walls in the building frame system,
special shear walls, for which special seismic detailing requirements are imposed, or
ordinary shear walls, which have a height restriction, have been generally used.
However, in the case of the RC flat-plate structure, seismic detailing requirements for
the connection with columns are given only as part of intermediate moment frames in
ACI 318-05. Furthermore, in the dual frame or building frame systems, two vertical
shear walls generally include regular openings, and are connected each other with
coupling beams, which have a great effect on the lateral resistance behavior. Lee et al.
(2014) investigated the seismic characteristics of this type of building structure through
a shaking table tests on 1:15 scale 25-story RC flat-plate core-wall building mode.

36
 28500 1900

8100

540
10200 680
Prototype building 1:15 scale model
Height : 79.5 m Height : 5.3 m

5400 5400

360 360
5400
Column : 900 × 900mm Column : 60 × 60 mm

28500

27000
11400

1900

1800
2000

760
Slab thickness : 300mm Slab thickness : 20 mm

3400
3575 3575
Wall thickness : 600mm Wall thickness : 40 mm
f’c = 40 MPa f’c = 40 MPa

8100

540
2450 150
fy = 400 MPa fy = 400 MPa
Y Y
750 8700 9600 8700 750 50 580 640 580 50
27000 1800
X X

(a) Prototype (b) Plan of protype buidling and 1:15 scale model
10400 600 3375
600

250
25-D29@400

21-D16@250

37-D16@125
Y
10200
11400

X
600

6-D16@400
2000
460

600

2-D29@400 9-D29@400 2-D29@460 9-D29@400

3975 2450 3975 3975

(c) Details of core wall and rebar fabrications of the core wall in the 1:15 scale model

Displacement
View A
1197

(6, 10, 14, 18, 22F)

300

1197
Y Accelerometer
(6, 10, 14, 18, 22F)
View B
X
LVDTs Accelerometer
75
D13,D14 A1 A2 A13 A14 D1,D2

D15,D16 A3 A4 A15 A16 D3,D4 30

D17,D18 A5 A6 A17 A18 D5,D6

30

D19,D20 A7 A8 A19 A20 D7,D8

D21,D22 A9 A10 A21 A22 D9,D10
D23,D24 A11 A12 A23 A24 D11,D12 30

Load Cell
Reference
Frame
shaking table shaking table

View A View B

(d) Overview of the shaking (e) Instrumentations

table test setup
Fig. 20 1:15-scale 25-story RC flat-plate core-wall building model (Lee et al, 2014)

Among the RC flat-plate core-wall building structures constructed in Korea, the

most typical type was chosen as a prototype: This was originally a 35-story flat-plate
building (Fig. 20(a)), where each floor has four dwelling units, and each dwelling unit
has the size of 188m2, as shown in Fig. 20(b). However, due to limitation in the capacity
of the shake table at the earthquake simulation test center of Pusan National University

37
(size 5m x 5m, payload 600 kN) and for the convenience of construction of the model,
the number of the stories of the prototype for the shaking table test was reduced to 25
(height: 79.5m), and staircases and slabs inside the core walls were all omitted. The
height of the first story is 5.1m, with those of the other stories being 3.1m. In the
prototype building, core walls take most of resistance to the lateral load, and peripheral
frames are designed to resist only the gravity load, in accordance with the definition of
the building frame system.

Table 12. Similitude law

Quantities Scale Factor True replica model Distorted model
Length Sl 1/15 1/15
Elastic modulus SE 1 1
Density Sρ 15 (total weight=1,160kN) 4.18 (total weight=323kN)
Acceleration Sa= SE / (Sρ · Sl) 1 1/(4.18 × 1/15) = 3.59
Force SE · Sl 2 1 × (1/15)2 1 × (1/15)2
Frequency S a / Sl 15 3.59 /(1 / 15) = 3.59 × 15

Time 1 / S a / Sl 1 / 15 1 / 3.59 × 15

Table 13. Test Program (X-dir.: Taft N21E, Y-dir.: Taft S69E)
Intended Measured Intended Measured Return period
Test Return period Test
PGA (g) PGA (g) / 3.59 PGA (g) PGA (g) / 3.59 in Korea
Designation in Korea Designation
X-dir. Y-dir. X-dir. Y-dir. X-dir. Y-dir. X-dir. Y-dir.
White Noise (0.025 X, Y) White Noise (0.025 X, Y)
0.035X 0.035 0.0243 0.187X 0.187 0.137 Design
Elastic
0.035Y 0.040 0.034 0.187Y 0.216 0.167 Earthquake
Behavior
0.035XY 0.035 0.040 0.0243 0.034 0.187XY 0.187 0.216 0.137 0.167 (DE)
White Noise (0.025 X, Y) White Noise (0.025 X, Y)
0.07X 0.070 0.052 0.3X 0.300 0.226
MCE
0.07Y 0.080 0.065 50 years 0.3Y 0.345 0.253
2400 years
0.07XY 0.070 0.080 0.052 0.065 0.3XY 0.300 0.345 0.226 0.253
White Noise (0.025 X, Y) White Noise (0.025 X, Y)
0.154X 0.154 0.127 0.4X 0.400 0.300 DE in San
0.154Y 0.176 0.140 500 years 0.4Y 0.460 0.354 Francisco
0.154XY 0.154 0.176 0.127 0.140 0.4XY 0.400 0.460 0.300 0.354 USA

The size and payload of a shaking table in the Earthquake Test Center of Pusan
National University are 5m×5m and 600kN, respectively, and the model was scaled down
to 1/15, taking availability of model reinforcement and constructability into consideration.
Taking into account the length similitude factor, Sl of 1/15, and the weight of available
steel plates for added artificial mass, the density similitude factor, Sρ, was chosen to be
4.18. Therefore, the acceleration similitude factor, Sa, was determined as 3.59. The
similitude law applied to the test model is summarized in Table 12. The program of
earthquake simulation tests is summarized in Table 13. The target or input accelerogram
of the table was based on the recorded 1952 Taft N21E (X direction) and Taft S69E (Y-
direction) components, and was formulated by compressing the time axis with the scale
factor of, 1 / 3.59 × 15 , and by amplifying the acceleration with the scale factor, 3.59. Fig.
20(d) shows an overview of the model. Displacement transducers and accelerometers
were installed at the floors of the 6th, 10th, 14th, 18th, and 22nd stories, and at the roof,
to measure the overall behavior of the model as shown in Fig. 20(e).

38
The test results of a 1:15-scale 25-story building model are as follows:

 The initial first-mode natural periods of the model obtained using the white noise
test were 0.413 s and 0.341 s in the X and Y directions, which are similar to the
values of 0.357 s and 0.277 s obtained via modal analysis for the design of the
prototype (Fig. 21(b)). The natural periods increased by approximately 1.5-fold
compared to the initial natural period after the maximum considered earthquake in
Korea (MCE, 0.3XY), and the damping ratio for the first mode varied from
approximately 5% to 7% in the X direction and 4% to 7% in the Y direction.
 In Fig. 21(c), under the design earthquake in Korea (DE, 0.187XY), the base shear
coefficients were 0.0361 in the X direction and 0.0518 in the Y direction, which are
1.5- and 2-fold larger than the design base shear coefficient of 0.0253, respectively.
The strength increased gradually with the significant decrease of stiffness, and a
large over-strength occurred (Fig. 21(d)). Under the DE (0.187XY), the maximum
inter-story drift ratio was 0.31% from the 10th to 13th stories in the X direction and
0.30% from the 18th to 21th stories in the Y direction in Fig. 21(e), which satisfy the
allowable inter-story drift ratio of 1.5% imposed by KBC 2009 (IBC 2006).
 The model displayed behavior in the first mode during free vibration after the
termination of excitation as shown in Fig. 21(g), and the maximum values of the
base shear and roof drift in this duration can be either similar to or larger than the
values of the maximum responses during the table excitation. However, the design
approach proposed in the current seismic design codes accounts for the seismic
behavior in the time period of ground excitation and does not consider the free
vibration behavior after excitation. A design approach that considers this behavior
must be developed.
 The higher modes were observed in both the X and Y directions in the vertical
distribution of acceleration as shown in Fig. 21(h). In particular, when the roof
acceleration reached a maximum, the effect of the second and third modes
governed, and the largest story shear was apparent from the 14th to 21st stories
instead of the first story (Fig. 21(i)). The middle stories experienced intensive cracks
in the slabs surrounded the columns (Fig. 21(f)), coupling beams, and walls.
Therefore, for the design of high-rise buildings (i.e., higher than 70m), where the
higher-mode effect dominates, the responses when the roof acceleration reaches a
maximum could be more critical to the middle stories than the responses when the
base shear or roof drift reaches a maximum (Fig. 21(j)).
 While cracks developed near the connections between the slab and column and
between the slab and wall under the DE in Korea (0.187XY), the lateral stiffness
decreased significantly and was approximately 50% and 70% of the initial values in
the X and Y directions under test 0.07XY, respectively (Fig. 21(d)). After the MCE in
Korea (0.3XY), the cracks propagated in not only slabs but also the walls and
coupling beams, and the lateral stiffness appeared to be 34% and 49% of the initial
stiffness in the X and Y directions, respectively; the maximum roof drift ratios
remained within 0.7%. The effective stiffness should be appropriately adjusted in
the seismic design according to the expected maximum lateral drift.

39
 0.8 0.15
Elastic, Sd (KBC2009) DE (I = 1.0, R=1.0) X-dir.

Base shear coefficient, Cs

Inelastic, Sd (KBC2009) Y-dir.
0.6 Output (0.187g X-dir) Ty (anal.) = 0.277 s
Output (0.187g Y-dir) 0.1 Tx (anal.) = 0.357 s
MCE, Sd (KBC2009)
Sa

0.4 DE (I = 1.2, R=6.0) 0.4g

MCE
0.187g 0.3g
0.05
DE(R=1.0, I=1.0) 0.154g
0.2
DE(R=6.0, I=1.2) 0.07g
Cs, design = 0.0253
0.035g
0.0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Period (sec) Period (sec)
(a) KBC 2009 design spectra and output (b) Relation of the natural period and base
response spectra under design earthquake shear coefficient with the design spectra
Base shear coefficient, Cs

Base shear coefficient, Cs

0.1 0.1
XY Excitation X-dir. XY Excitation Y-dir.
0.08 X Excitation 0.08 Y Excitation
0.4g 0.4g
0.3g
0.06 0.06 0.154g0.187g 0.3g
0.154g 0.187g
0.04 0.04 Ω = 2.05
Ω = 1.43
0.02 0.07g Cs, design = 0.0253 0.02 0.07g Cs, design = 0.0253
0.035g 0.035g
0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Roof displacement (mm) Roof displacement (mm)
(c) Correlation between maximum roof drift and base shear coefficient
100 100 100 100
0.07XY X-dir. 0.187XY X-dir. 0.3XY X-dir. 0.4XY X-dir.
Base shear (kN)
Base shear (kN)

Base shear (kN)

Base shear (kN)

Vmax = - 23.9kN Vmax = 41.9kN Vmax = - 67.9kN Vmax = - 70.5kN

50 50 50 50

0 0 0 0
Table Table Table Table
-50 Excitation -50 Excitation -50 Excitation -50 Excitation
No No No No
k = 4.71 kN/mm Excitation
k = 2.36 kN/mm k = 1.61 kN/mm k = 0.97 kN/mm
Excitation Excitation Excitation
-100 -100 -100 -100
100 -60 -30 0 30 60 100 -60 -30 0 30 60 100 -60 -30 0 30 60 100 -60 -30 0 30 60
0.07XY Y-dir. 0.187XY Y-dir. 0.3XY Y-dir. 0.4XY Y-dir.
VRoof displacement (mm)
Base shear (kN)

Base shear (kN)

Base shear (kN)

Roof displacement (mm)

Base shear (kN)

max = 26.5kN V max = 60.2kN VRoof

max = displacement
79.9kN (mm) VRoof = displacement
83.3kN (mm)
50 50 50 50 max

0 0 0 0
Table Table Table Table
Excitation Excitation Excitation Excitation
-50 -50 -50 -50
No No No No
k = 5.26 kN/mm Excitation k = 3.67 kN/mm Excitation k = 2.55 kN/mm Excitation k = 1.79 kN/mm Excitation
-100 -100 -100 -100
-60 -30 0 30 60 -60 -30 0 30 60 -60 -30 0 30 60 -60 -30 0 30 60
Roof displacement (mm) Roof displacement (mm) Roof displacement (mm) Roof displacement (mm)
(d) Hysteretic relation of the base shear and roof displacement
30 30
28 0.187XY No Excitation 28 No Excitation
Roof
26 0.3XY Roof
26
24
2222
0.4XY 24
22F
22
12th floor 18th floor
20 20
1.5%18F 1.5%
Story
Story

1818 18
16 16
1414 14F
14
12 12
1010 10F
10
8 8
66 6F
6 0.187XY
4 4
2 X-dir. 2 Y-dir. 0.3XY
0 0 0.4XY
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Interstory drift ratio (rad) Interstory drift ratio (rad)
(e) Envelope of interstory drift ratio
(f) Crack patterns in the upper sides of the
12th and 18th floor slabs under MCE
Fig. 21 Shake-table test results of a 1:15-scale 25-story RC flat-plate core-wall building
model (Lee et al, 2014)

40
 Table Excitation No Excitation Table Excitation No Excitation
90 40
Base shear (kN) Base shear (kN)

62.9 58.2 Base shear 15.3 34.4 Roof disp.

Disp. (mm)
45 20
0 0
-45 -20 -23.1
-67.9 -53.4 0.3XY, X-dir. -27.6 0.3XY, X-dir.
-90 -40
90 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 40 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
79.9 Time (sec) 53.5 Base shear 23.2 Time (sec) Roof disp.

Disp. (mm)
45 20 18.7
0 0
-45 -20
-76.3 -44.3 0.3XY, Y-dir. -23.8 -17.9 0.3XY, Y-dir.
-90 -40
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(g) Time histories of the base shear and roof displacement under MCE in Korea
30 30 30 30
28 Max. Base shear Table Excitation 28 Max. Base shear No Excitation 28 Max. Base shear Table Excitation 28 Max. Base shear No Excitation
Roof
26 Roof
26 Roof
26 Roof
26
24 0.187XY 24 -0.306 0.308 24 0.187XY 24 -0.183 0.285
22
22 0.3XY 22F
22 22F
22 0.3XY 22F
22
20 0.4XY 20 20 0.4XY 20
Floor

Floor

Floor

Floor
18
18 18F
18 18F
18 18F
18
16 16 16 16
14
14 14F
14 14F
14 14F
14
12 12 12 12
10 -0.731
10 10F
10 10F
10 10F
10
8 8 8 -0.443 8
66 0.451 6F
6 0.187XY 6F
6 0.475 6F
6 0.187XY
4 4 0.3XY 4 4 0.3XY
2 X-dir. 2 X-dir. 0.4XY 2 Y-dir. 2 Y-dir. 0.4XY
0 0 0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g)

(h) Distribution of acceleration at instants of maximum roof acceleration

30 30 30 30
28 Max. Roof Accel. Table Excitation 28 Max. Roof Accel. No Excitation 28 Max. Roof Accel. Table Excitation 28 Max. Roof Accel. No Excitation
Roof
26 Roof
26 0.187XY Roof
26 Roof
26 0.187XY
24 X-dir. 24 X-dir. 0.3XY 24 Y-dir. 24 0.3XY Y-dir.
22
22 22F
22
0.4XY
22F
22 22F
22
20 20 20 20 0.4XY
Story

Floor
Floor

Floor

18
18 -34.8 38.5 18F
18 18F
18 49.3 18F
18
16 16 16 -77.5 16
14
14 14F
14 14F
14 14F
14 -28.6
12 12 12 12
10
10 10F
10 10F
10 10F
10
8 8 8 8
66 0.187XY 6F
6 6F
6 0.187XY 6F
6
4 0.3XY 4 -37.4 4 0.3XY 4 53.5
2 0.4XY 2 57.0 2 0.4XY 2
0 0 0 0
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90
Shear force (kN) Shear force (kN) Shear force (kN) Shear force (kN)

(i) Distribution of story shear at instants of maximum roof acceleration

Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%) Drift ratio (%)
-1.1 -0.7 -0.4 0 0.4 0.7 -1.1 -0.7 -0.4 0 0.4 0.7
1.1 Roof 1.1 -1.1 -0.7 -0.4 0 0.4 0.7 -1.1 -0.7 -0.4 0 0.4 0.7
1.1 Roof 1.1
30 30 30 30
28 Max. Roof Disp. Table Excitation 28 Max. Roof Disp. Table Excitation 28 Max. Roof Disp. No Excitation 28 Max. Roof Disp. No Excitation
Roof
26 -23.1 22F
26 Roof
26 22F
26
24 15.3 24 -23.8 23.2 24 -27.6 34.4 24 -17.9 18.7
22
22 18F
22 22
22 18F
22
20 20 20 20
18
18 18
14F 18
18 18
14F
Floor

Floor

16 16 16 16
14
14 14
10F 14
14 14
10F
12 12 12 12
10 10
6F 10
10 10
6F
10
8 8 8 8
6 0.187XY 6 0.187XY 6 0.187XY 6 0.187XY
46 0.3XY 4 0.3XY 46 0.3XY 4 0.3XY
2 X-dir. 0.4XY 2 Y-dir. 0.4XY 2 X-dir. 0.4XY 2 Y-dir. 0.4XY
0 0 0 0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(j) Distribution of the drift at the maximum response of roof drift

Vx = 58.8 kN 60
X-dir. (0.3XY) Vy = 12.8 kN
1.0 DL
DL/3.59
Time = 14.04 sec εy = 0.002
εy
인장변형(+)(+)
Tension 0.00094 0.0078 30 εc = 0.003
εc
Moment (kNm)

εc
εc = 0.006
-0.00018 φx-dir.=0.0085
압축변형(-) 0.0013 0
Compression (-) φx-dir.= 0.034rad/m φy = 0.0104 φcl = 0.019
φu = 0.041
φx-dir. = 0.0085rad/m (tension) -30 φx-dir. = 0.034
Y-dir. (compression)
0.0014
Short wall
-0.00018 -60
0.0058 -0.15 -0.075 0 0.075 0.15
X-dir. 0.00078
Curvature (rad/m)

(k) Strain distribution of the core wall at the (l) Relation of the moment and curvature
bottom of the first story under 0.3XY (M-φ) in core wall (X-dir.)
Fig. 21 (Continued)

41
 In accordance with the displacement-based design method proposed in ACI 318-05,
special boundary details were imposed on the short wall in the first story with the
expected plastic rotation of θp = 0.00537 rad (Fig. 21(k)). No significant plastic
deformation was observed under the MCE in Korea. At the bottom 70 mm of the
first story, the measured maximum curvature when the end of the boundary
element in the short wall is in compression is φx-dir. = 0.0085 rad/m, which is
approximately 21% of 0.041 rad/m, the ultimate curvature corresponding to the
expected compressive strain of 0.00638 m/m (Fig. 21(l)). This result, together with
the above-mentioned findings, implies that the design requirements on the
boundary elements of the walls given in ACI 318-05 may be overly conservative,
particularly for the wall design of high-rise RC building frames or dual-frame
structures with more than 20 stories. Because the conclusions are based on the
test results of only one building model with non-negligible foundation rocking,
further research is required to generalize these conclusions.

3. SEISMIC DESIGN IMPLICATIONS FOR LOW-TO-MODERATE SEISMIC REGIONS

(1) The 3-story frame model showed the linear elastic behavior under the Taft N21E
motion with the peak ground acceleration of 0.12g, representing the design earthquake
in Korea. The model revealed fairly good resistance to the higher levels of earthquake
simulation tests though it was not designed against earthquakes. The main
components of its resistance to the high level of earthquakes is the high over-strength.
The model structure has the overall displacement ductility ratio of 2.4 and the over-
strength factor of approximately 8.7.
(2) When the bare frame was infilled with the masonry of cement bricks, the masonry infills
contribute to the large increase in the stiffness and strength of the global structure
whereas they also accompany the increase of earthquake inertia forces. The masonry
infills can be beneficial to the seismic performance of the structure since the amount of
the increase in strength appears to be greater than that in the induced earthquake
inertia forces while the deformation capacity of the global structure remains almost
same regardless of the presence of the masonry infills.
(3) 17-story wall building structures with a vertical irregularity at the lowest two stories
having three different frame plans were subjected to a series of earthquake simulation
tests. The seismic response coefficients measured under the design earthquake
(Taft030) were 2.8 to 3.1 times the design coefficient, 0.048 for all models. Model 1
having no shear wall in the frame of the lowest two stories showed a sway plastic
mechanism in the lower stories during a severe earthquake (Taft080). The shear wall in
the central frame in Model 2 caused the reduction of shear deformation to 0.48%, which
is about one third of that in the case of Model 1. The large torsional eccentricity did not
necessarily induce a larger deformation in the flexible side in Model 3 having a shear
wall in only edge frame parallel to the ground excitations when compared with the case
of Model 1. The base-shear versus torque (BST) diagram was useful for observing the
mode of vibration leading to the collapse of the system. The hysteretic curves of Model 3
under Taft080 showed that the base shear and torque were in phase during the

42
 translation/torsion coupled mode, but became out of phase during the torsional mode
after the structure sustained large inelastic deformation in the flexible side.
(4) A 5-story residential apartment building that has a high irregularity of weak story, soft
story, and torsion simultaneously at the ground story and was designed only for gravity
loads, survived the table excitations simulating the design earthquake with the PGA of
0.187g without any significant damages. The lateral resistance and stiffness of the
critical columns and wall increased or decreased significantly with the large variation of
acting axial forces caused by the high bi-directional overturning moments and rocking
phenomena under the bi-directional excitations.
(5) The applicability of buckling restrained braces (BRB’s) and fiber reinforced polymer
(FRP) sheets to the seismic strengthening of the first story in the above 5-story building
appears questionable because the BRB’s revealed significant slips at the joint with the
existing RC beam, up-lifts of columns from RC foundations and displacements due to
the flexibility of foundations. The initial lateral stiffness appeared to be, thereby, as low
as one seventh of the intended value, which led to a large yield displacement and,
therefore, the BRB’s could not dissipate seismic input energy as desired within the
range of anticipated drift ratio of 1%.
(6) The same strengthened 5-story model was studied regarding the torsional behavior
because all the response data at the ground story for determining the base shear and
torsional eccentricity were obtained for analysis. As the intensity of table excitations
increased, representing earthquakes with return periods from 50 to 2500 years in Korea,
the range of eccentricities at the peak values in the time histories of drift and base shear
decreased from approximately ±30% to within ±10% of the transverse dimension of the
model. The inertial torque was resisted by both longitudinal and transverse frames, in
proportion to their instantaneous rigidity. Yielding of the longitudinal frames under severe
table excitations caused a substantial loss in their instantaneous torsional resistance and
thereby transferred most of the large torque to the transverse frames, resulting in a
significantly degraded torsional stiffness with an enlarged torsional deformation despite
almost zero eccentricity. From these observations, it is clear that the eccentricity in itself
cannot represent the critical torsional behaviors. To overcome this problem, the demand
in torque shall be determined in a direct relationship with the base or story shear, given
as an ellipse constructed with the maximum points in its principal axes located by the
two adjacent torsion-dominant modal spectral values. This approach provides a simple,
but transparent design tool by enabling comparison between demand and supply in
shear force-torque diagrams.
(7) A 10-story RC box-type wall building structure representing the most popular type of
residential buildings in Korea was studied regarding seismic resistance. The model
structure showed the over-strength factor, 2.5-3.0 under the maximum considered
earthquake (MCE) in Korea. Under the DE in Korea, the maximum inter-story drift ratio
(IDR) was within 0.3%. The high over-strength came from the contribution of slab by
increasing the capacity of structure through coupling the tension/compression
membrane action in the walls. Under the MCE in Korea, the maximum axial strain
demands of the wall boundaries in the lower part of the first story are within 0.006m/m in
tension and 0.0012m/m in compression, which cannot lead to concrete crushing or
reinforcement buckling and fracture as shown in 2011 Conception Chile earthquake.

43
(8) The 9-story RC piloti-type residential building model showed the over-strength factor,
3.6 in the X direction and 2.4 in the Y direction, and the maximum inter-story drift ratio
(IDR), 0.61% occurs not at the piloti story but at the fourth to fifth story under the MCE
in Korea. In contrast to common expectation that cracks and damages would
concentrate on the piloti story, a number of horizontal cracks were observed, not only
at the piloti story, but also throughout several stories above the transfer plate.
(9) The 25-story RC flat-plate core-wall building model revealed the effect of the higher
modes, whereas free vibration after the termination of the table excitations was governed
by the first mode. The maximum values of base shear and roof drift during the free
vibration are either similar to or larger than the values of the maximum responses during
the table excitation. With a maximum roof drift ratio of 0.7% under the MCE in Korea, the
lateral stiffness degraded to approximately 50% of the initial stiffness. Energy dissipation
via inelastic deformation was predominant during free vibration after the termination of
table excitation rather than during table excitation. The walls with special boundary
elements in the first story did not exhibit any significant inelastic behavior, which means
the inapplicability of the present methodology such as required in ACI 318 to determine
the plastic deformation demand.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research presented herein was supported by the government of Republic of Korea.

REFERENCES

ACI Committee 318 (2005) Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary (ACI 318-05), American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
AIK (2001) AIK 2000, Architectural Institute of Korea, Seoul, Korea. (in Korean)
AIK (2005) Korean Building Code, KBC 2005, Architectural Institute of Korea, Seoul,
Korea. (in Korean)
AIK (2009) Korean Building Code, KBC 2009, Architectural Institute of Korea, Seoul,
Korea. (in Korean)
Fardis, M.N. (2014) Comments on the seismic design provisions of the Korean Building
Code 2009. (Opinion paper)
ICC (2000) International Building Code, IBC 2000, International Code Council, Country
Club Hills, IL.
ICC (2006) International Building Code, IBC 2006, International Code Council, Country
Club Hills, IL.
Hwang, S. J., Lee, K. B., Kang, C. B., Lee, H. S., Lee, S. H., and Oh, S. H. (2011). “Design
and Construction of a 1:5 Scale 10-Story R.C. Apartment Building Model for Earthquake
Simulation Tests,” Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea. 15(6), 67-80.
(in Korean)
Ko, D. W., and Lee, H. S. (2006). “Shaking table tests on a high‐rise RC building model
having torsional eccentricity in soft lower storeys”, Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 35(11), 1425-1451.

44
Korea National Statistical Office (KNSO) (2010) Population and Housing Census. (in
Korean)
Lam, N. (2014) Displacement based assessment of structures for low and moderate
seismic regions (Opinion paper).
Lee, H. S., and Woo, S. W. (2002a) “Seismic performance of a 3-story RC frame in a
low-seismicity region”, Engineering Structures, 24(6), 719-734.
Lee, H. S., and Woo, S. W. (2002b). “Effect of masonry infills on seismic performance
of a 3‐storey R/C frame with non‐seismic detailing”, Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 31(2), 353-378.
Lee, H. S., and Ko, D. W. (2002). “Shaking Table Tests of a High-Rise RC Bearing-Wall
Structure with Bottom Piloti Stories”, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building
Engineering, 1(1), 47-54.
Lee, H. S., and Ko, D. W. (2007). “Seismic response characteristics of high-rise RC
wall buildings having different irregularities in lower stories”, Engineering Structures,
29(11), 3149-3167.
Lee, H. S., Jung, D. W., Lee, K. B., Kim, H. C., and Lee, K. (2011). “Shake-table
responses of a low-rise RC building model having irregularities at first story”,
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 40(4), 517-539.
Lee, H. S., Hwang, S. J., Lee, K. B., Kang, C. B., Lee, S. H., and Oh, S. H. (2012).
“Earthquake Simulation Tests on a 1: 5 Scale 10-Story RC Residential Building
Model,” The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon,
Portugal.
Lee, H. S., Lee, K.B., Hwang, K.R., and Cho, C.S. (2013). “Shake table responses of
an RC low-rise building model strengthened with buckling restrained braces at
ground story”, Earthquakes and Structures, 5(6), 703-731.
Lee, H.S., Kang, C.B., Jeong, G.H., Lee, S.H., and Oh, S.H. (2013). “Earthquake
Simulation Tests on a 1:5 Scale 9-Story Piloti-Type RC Residential Building Model”,
5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering.
Taipei, Taiwan.
Lee, H.S. and Hwang, K.R. (2015), “Torsion design implications from shake-table
responses of an RC low-rise building model having irregularities at the ground story”,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44(6), 907–927.
Lee, H. S., Hwang, K. R., & Kim, Y. H. (2015). “Seismic performance of a 1: 15‐scale
25‐story RC flat‐plate core‐wall building model,” Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 44(6), 929-953.
Li, C. C. and Lam, S. S. E. (2006) “Shaking Table Test of a 1:20 Scale High-Rise
Building with a Transfer Plate System,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 132,
pp.1732-1744.

45