EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL.

16,4734490 (1988)

ANALYSIS OF SHAKING TABLE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

EFFECTS DURING SEISMIC SIMULATION TESTS

MARCIAL BLONDET*
Department of Civil Engineering, Catholic Unioersity of Peru, Lima, Peru

AND

CARLOS ESPARZA
Department of Civil Engineering, Technical Unioersity of Cajamarca, Peru

SUMMARY
An analytical model is developed to evaluate performance characteristics of unidirectional seismic simulators (shaking
tables).The validity of the model is verifiedwith experimental measurementsof the frequency response of the shaking table
at the Catholic University of Peru.
Interaction effects between shaking table and structure are first studied by analysing the response of a two DOF (degree
of freedom) oscillator with mechanical properties representative of the actuator-table-structure system. A single DOF
viscoelastic oscillator representing the structural test specimen is then included in the analytical model of the seismic
simulator, and the behaviour of the combined system is evaluated, in the frequency domain, in terms of response stability
and accuracy of reproduction of the command signal. Numerical simulations of system response under different load
conditions are subsequently performed in order to study the influence of shaking table and test structure characteristicson
the interaction phenomenon.
The results obtained explain some of the performance degradation observed in seismic simulation tests involving very
heavy structures and provide guidelines for the design of more reliable shaking table systems.

INTRODUCTION
Degradation of the performance of seismic simulation systems (shaking tables), characterized by loss of fidelity
in reproducing the command signal and difficulties in maintaining system stability, has been observed during
tests with structures having mass comparable to that of the shaking table platform.', Some of these problems
seem to be caused by dynamic interaction effects between shaking table and test structure.
The study of shaking table-structure interaction is hence important to understand the behaviour of seismic
simulator systems near their operational limits and to properly interpret experimental measurements obtained
during dynamic tests.
This paper presents numerical results on table-structure interaction effects, obtained with an analytical
model developed to simulate displacement-controlled uniaxial shaking tables loaded with one DOF test
structures. Characteristic parameters of the analytical model were adjusted to represent the shaking table at the
Catholic University of Peru (PUC).

Professor of Civil Engineering.

' Assistant Professor.

0098-8847/88/040473-18$09.00 Received 20 October 1986

0 1988 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised I0 April 1987
474 M. BLONDET AND C . ESPARZA

DYNAMIC RESPONSE O F ELECTROHYDRAULIC SEISMIC SIMULATORS

Initial remarks
An analytical model developed to study the performance of electrohydraulic shaking tables is presented
here. Quality of performance is evaluated by the capability of the system to reproduce accurately a desired
command signal within safe operating conditions. The model, devised closely following guidelines provided by
Jeunink,3* describes the frequency response of displacement-controlled systems stabilized through force
feedback.

Analysis of actuator-table system

A simple model of a seismic simulator servosystem is shown in Figure 1. The displacement command signal,
X (-,is transformed to a proportional command voltage V c = K & c, which induces a proportional valve spool
displacement X = K sV,. Thus,
x v = K&&C (1)
Valve spool displacement produces a high pressure oil flow to the appropriate chamber of the actuator
cylinder. Total oil flow Q T is a (generally non-linear) function of valve spool displacement X , and pressure
difference between actuator chambers AP. For spool position corresponding to the piston near the center of
the actuator cylinder it can be approximated by the linear function5
Q T = K I X v - K2AP (4
Valve dynamic response is thus characterized by coefficients K , (flow gain) and K , (flow-pressure
coefficient).The first term on the right hand side of equation (2) corresponds to the oil flow Q vdelivered to the
actuator by the valve; the second term describes the fluid losses Q L, in this case assumed to be proportional to
A P , i.e.
QT=Qv-QL (3)
Considering that the force in the actuator is
F = AAP (4)
where A is the cross section area of the actuator piston, equation (3) can be rewritten as
Q T =K v X , - K L F
where K , = K,K,K,and K , = K 2 1 A .

Signal Processoi
Command r Return Supply r~Servovalve

- Valve Spool

+ Platf~;pdisplocernenf

Tronsducer

L Vf:
-~__________
FORCE FEEDBACK
K,. F = K , . d p . A
I3r- LActuator Cylinder

Pressure D i f f e r e n i i o l
Transducer

Figure 1. Simple model of seismic simulation system

 SHAKING TABLE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION 475

Q be described as divided between an incompressible component Q producing piston movement and a

component Q due to fluid compression; therefore
QT=QM+Qc
or
Q T= A X ,+ VAP/B
X,denotes piston (and table) position, Vis the compressed oil volume in the actuator cylinder (variable with
time) and B is the oil bulk modulus. Dot notation is used to indicate differentiation with respect to time.
Equation (7) can be further simplified to
QT = A X + (V/2)AP/B (8)
by setting V to be equal to one half of the cylinder chamber volume (its average value).
The dynamic equilibrium equation of the table platform, neglecting all damping forces, gives
F = M,X, (9)
Assuming null initial conditions, equations (4), (5), (8) and (9) can be written in terms of Laplace transform
variable S as
F ( S )= AAP(S) (10)
QAS) = KvXc(S)-KLF(S) (1 1)
Q T(S)= A S X p(S)+ VSAP(S)/2B (12)
F(S) = M,SZXp(S) (13)
Figure 2 shows, in block diagram form, the dynamic coupling of valve, actuator and platform as defined by
the last four equations.
Table platform displacement (output) X ,(S), is conveniently expressed in terms of command displacement
(input) X c ( S ) as
x P(S) = G ( S )x c(S) (14)
where G (S) is the open loop transfer function of the actuator-platform system. Simple block algebra
operations6 performed on the block diagram lead to the following expression:

Total
Command 011Flow OL
Displacement Table

?
Volve spool force
d I r p l ac e m ent
Qm

L<
-p, L-__

Servovalve Actuator - Platlorm System

Figure 2. Block diagram of servovalve-actuator-platform system

476 M. BLONDET AND C. ESPARZA

Some terms of the denominator of the above equation can be associated with the mechanical properties of the
elastic system formed by the oil column and the platform. The average hydraulic stiffness is given by
K , = 2BA2/V (16)
The natural resonant frequency of the oil column-platform system is therefore u0 = J ( K " / M p), or
oo= A J ( 2 B / V M p ) (17)
Hydraulic damping, characterized by the 'viscous' coefficient'
C,= 2BAK,Mp/V (18)
is usually described by the natural damping factor t o= C , / ( 2 M pw0),7 therefore,
K,
50 = T J(2BMPIV)

Transfer function G ( S ) can thus be expressed as

K O
G(S)=
1
+3+-s
250 2
+s
(00 0 0

where K O = K " / A (with frequency units, l/sec) is the open loop gain.

Closed loop control system

In order to improve system accuracy, table displacement X is continuously compared with the command
signal X (this is actually done by comparing proportional voltages, as shown in Figure 1). The difference
between command and displacement (i.e. the error signal E ) is fed back to the servovalve, which responds by
sending a corresponding oil flow to the actuator cylinder, thus correcting platform position X p' The block
diagram of Figure 3, represents the system with displacement feedback control.
The closed loop transfer function of the system T (S )is related to the open loop transfer function through the
expression6

Command Error
Table Displacement
& Qv 1/A
KvZKcKsKj - Xp(S)

Figure 3. Block diagram of seismic simulator with displacement feedback

 SHAKING TABLE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION 477

where H ( S ) , the gain of the displacement feedback network, is in this case equal to unity since table
displacement and command signal are sought to be identical. The closed loop transfer function of the
actuator-platform system is therefore

WO

The frequency response of the system can be easily determined by replacing Laplace variable S in the transfer
function by complex frequency im and decomposing the resulting expression in its amplitude and phase
components, i.e.
T(io) = I T(iu)I ei(b(ffJ) (23)
where the amplitude response is

and the phase response is

(o:w -w3
4 ( ~=) -arc tan (24b)
Kowi - 2 5 0 ~ 0 ~ ~
Stability analysis
The condition of absolute stability of the system, obtained by applying Nyquist's criterion6 is
IG(iw&H(iw&1<1 (25)
where (oc is the frequency corresponding to a phase angle of - 180". In this case, oc= coo, and
KO -= 25000 (26)
is found to be the condition for absolute stability of the shaking table system.
Open loop gain in the stable frequency band is therefore limited by the natural damping factor, to.Since
natural damping ofelectrohydraulic systems is in general too low to guarantee safe operation, it is necessary to
increase damping by other means.4 Velocity and force feedback networks are commonly used to improve
stability and performance of dynamic systems. It has been suggested, however, that the velocity feedback does
not have a significant influence on the transfer function of the seismic simulator;' hence it is not included in the
analytical model.
The block diagram of Figure 4 represents the response of a shaking table with a compensation force
feedback loop with gain K F. Its closed loop transfer function is

or

where

<,= 50+yJ(2BMp/V)

Transfer function of systems without and with force feedback are similar [compare equations (22) and (27b)l.
In the case of a system with force feedback, damping is characterized by coefficient tq,which is always larger
478 M. BLONDET A N D C. ESPARZA

Force Feedback
n

Command Servovolve

-
Table
XP
Displacement

n
1

Displacement Feedback

Figure 4. Block diagram of seismic simulator with displacement and force feedbacks

than the natural damping factor to.Therefore, force feedback has the effect of electronically increasing system
damping (t, is accordingly called the equivalent damping factor). Amplitude and phase frequency responses,
determined by simply replacing 5, for to in equations (24) are

These two expressions characterize the dynamic response of uniaxial, displacement-controlled shaking tables
with force feedback compensation.

Performance analysis of a one DOF seismic simulator

The dynamic response of the earthquake simulator system of the Catholic University of Peru (PUC) was
analysed with the model defined by equations (29). Characteristic parameters were obtained experimentally for
control settings corresponding to normal system operation.
The resonant frequency m0had been measured by Jeunink to be 136 rad/sec (i.e.fo = w0/27t = 17.5 H z ) . ~An
approximate measure of equivalent damping factor of about 45 per cent crit. was determined by subjecting the
system to a step displacement command signal and measuring the overshoot of the response, assumed to be
similar to that of a viscous ~ y s t e mA. ~value of 48 was then selected for the open tool gain K Oto obtain the best
curve fit with the analytical transfer function. Figure 5 shows acceptable agreement between analytical and
experimental transfer functions in the operating frequency range.
Two commonly used measures of system relative stability, viz. gain and phase margins, have been
determined by means of the Nyquist polar plot (real vs imaginary components of G H (iw)) shown in Figure 6.
Both values are measures of the distance of the curve to the point ( - 1,O): curves intercepting the real axis to the
left of that point are indicative of unstable systems. Gain margin indicates the factor by which system gain
could be increased before the system becomes unstable, whereas phase margin is the additional phase lag
required to reach instability.6
 SHAKING TABLE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION 479

00000 Experimental
Analytical

Frecuency ( Hz )

Figure 5. Experimental vs analytical transfer functions of PUC shaking table

MECHANICAL INTERPRETATION OF TABLE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

It was decided to study first table-structure interaction by analysing the response of the two DOF viscoelastic
system shown in Figure 7(a). X , and X , are the total displacements of the platform and the structure,
respectively; the system is driven by the base displacement X o . This model of the actuator-platform system is
characterized by platform mass M ,, hydraulic stiffness K and hydraulic viscous damping C H. The test
,
structure is described by its mass M , elastic stiffness K and viscous damping C,.
The equations of motion of the system, expressed in Laplace transform variable S, are
[ M ,S2 + (CH+CJS + K ,+ K J X ,(S) = (CHS+ K H ) X , ( S ) + (CsS + K , ) X , ( S )
(30)
[ M , S 2 +C,S + K,]X,(S) = C,SX,(S)+ K ,X S(S)
These equations are functionally represented in the block diagram of Figure 7(b). The loading effect of the
,,
structure on the table-actuator system is force F which modifies the force provided by the hydraulic actuator
to drive the platform.
Denoting by Q, and w , the uncoupled natural vibration frequencies of the actuator-platform system and
the structure, respectively; by t P and t s their corresponding damping factors and by u = M J M , the
480 M. BLONDET AND C. ESPARZA

'm

Re

Figure 6. Nyquist plot of PUC shaking table (analytical). Stability margins: G , = gain margin = 2.06; 4, = phase margin = 590

structure-platform mass ratio, the (open loop) transfer function of the two DOF system is found to be

X (S)
G ( S ) = P-
+ +
A3S3 A2S2 A , S A0 +
+
X o ( S ) - S4 B3S3+ B2S2 B I S Bo+ +
 SHAKING TABLE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION 48 1

Platform Structure

MP MS
0 0

t
X. t’x,
0) Mechanical Model

TABLE

-
DISPLACEMENT

x p (S)

bl Block Diagram

Figure 7. Two-DOF viscoelastic model of actuator-platform system

The corresponding amplitude and phase frequency responses are

+ ( A , w- A 3 W 3 ) 2
IG(io)l =
(A, -A2W2)2
( B , - B 2 u 2 + o ~+ (B,o
A,o-A303
) ~- 1
8 3 0 ~ ) ~

B1 o - B3w3
(334

a(w)= arc tan

( A , - A 2 0 2 )-arctan( B, - B2w3 + w4
Frequency response curves corresponding to the PUC seismic simulator loaded with a ‘typical’test structure
(with 5 Hz natural vibration frequency, 2 per cent crit. damping factor and 0-5 mass ratio) were generated to
study the interaction effects. Structural properties were then varied to investigate their influence on the
frequency response of the system.
Figure 8 shows the results of varying the mass ratio: the unloaded table (u = 0),a typical structure (u = 0.5)
and a very heavy structure ( u = 1.5) were considered. The influence of structural damping on the response can
 482 M. BLONDET A N D C. ESPARZA

' 3
t 1
W
U
3
-
c
.-
a
E
a

0 . ' . " " " ' ' " " ' " " ' '

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 8. Effect of mass ratio on frequency response of two DOF system

be observed in Figure 9, where response curves of systems loaded with moderately heavy structures (u = 0.5)
with damping factors of 0, 2 and 10 per cent are presented.
In all the cases considered, table-structure interaction effects are manifested as a distortion of the dynamic
response of the system in a frequency band centred near the natural frequency of the test structure,f,.A peak-
and-notch effect is evident in the amplitude response; amplification of table response (resonance) occurs at
frequencies slightly lower than f, and maximum attenuation (antiresonance) is produced when the driving
frequency is equal tof,. A violent decrease of phase response is also observed in a narrow frequency band near
f,. Interaction effects increase with the structure-platform mass ratio; structural damping, on the contrary,
seems to be beneficial.

RESPONSE OF SHAKING TABLE-STRUCTURE SYSTEMS

Transfer function
The dynamic response of a seismic simulator servosystem loaded with a one DOF viscoelastic test structure
is represented in block diagram form in Figure 10. The effect of the structure on the table system is the same
 SHAKING TABLE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION 483

fs - 0 % crit -
2-
x4 xO 2,-
I
W
-0
3
c
.-
- I
a
E
a

O ~ ~ " ~ " ~ " " " " " " " ~ " ~

180,, , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

0)
90 - -
z
Is,
a,
E 10%
0
a,
v)
0
L
a
- 90 - ri
-
$>-
5 - 0%

I . , l r l l l l l l l l l l ,
-180 I 1 1 3

Frequency ( Hz)

Figure 9. Effect of structure's damping on frequency response of two DOF system

as in the case of the two DOF oscillator: it can be described as a perturbation on the force delivered to the
platform by the actuator. The closed loop transfer function of the system is in this case

where
ME=Mp
s2+ 2osts(1 + u)S + 0):

s2+2ws5$+w:
(35)

The transfer function of the loaded system is similar to that of the bare table [compare equations (34)and
(27a)], except that in the case of a loaded system, platform and structure appear as a load with effective mass ME,
variable with frequency. Replacing the expression for effective mass in equations (34), the closed loop transfer
function of the actuator-table system is found to be
X P(S) Ko(S2 + 2wstss +a:)
T(S)= -=
X , ( S ) c5ss + c4s4+ c3s3+ C2SZ+ CIS + co
 484 M.BLONDET AND C . ESPARZA

COMMAND
DISPLACEMENT TABLE

Figure 10. Block diagram of seismic simulator loaded with one DOF viscoelastic structure

where the coefficients in the denominator are given by

and the corresponding amplitude and phase frequency response are found to be

3(03 + c,w

c404- c202+ co
The following conditions for absolute stability of the system were obtained using Hurwitz’s criterion:6

s, = c3c4 - c2c5 > 0

s, = CIS1 - C4(C,C4 COCS) > 0
- (39)
s3 = -c3cos, +c,c,(c,c~-coc5)+c1s2
>0
 SHAKING TABLE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION 485

Influence of system characteristics on interaction effects

The influence of the mechanical characteristics of both seismic simulator and test structure on the dynamic
response of the system was evaluated through the transfer function given by equation (38). The characteristic
parameters of the PUC simulator at normal operating conditions loaded with a typical test structure (f,
= 5 Hz,t S= 2 per cent critical, u = 0.5) were selected for numerical computations. Characteristic parameters
of structure and shaking table system were then varied to study their significance in the interaction
phenomenon.
Frequency response and stability curves for different values of the mass ratio are presented in Figures 11 and
12, respectively. Figures 13and 14 present the effect of structural damping and natural vibration frequency and
finally, Figures 15 and 16 show frequency response curves and Nyquist plots of two seismic simulators with
different characteristics operating under the same loading conditions.
Interaction effects are very similar to those observed for the two DOF oscillator with physical properties
representative of the table-structure system. This emphasizes the mechanical nature of the interaction between
table and structure. Comparison of Figures 8 and 11 indicates that the control system is unable to eliminate the
distortions in the response. The effects of displacement and force feedback are mainly to improve system
accuracy ('flatter' amplitude response in operating frequency band) and stability (larger stability margins).

tI

I
90

- 90
u= 0

-180 " . ' " " " '

~~

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequency ( Hz )

Figure 11. Effect of mass ratio on frequency response of PUC simulator

486 M .BLONDET AND C. ESPARZA

I ”
 SHAKING TABLE -STRUCTURE INTERACTION 481

.,
0 5 10 15 20 25

i
0)
U
Y
. Unloaded
0
0,
v)
0
c
a

s... I , 25
0
U 5
3 I1U
0 15
13 20

Frequency ( Hz)
Figure 14. Effect of structure's natural vibration frequency on frequency response of PUC simulator

In general, the interaction effects are characterized by a peak-notch (resonance-antiresonance) amplitude

distortion accompanied by a violent phase lag, in a frequency band near the natural frequency of the uncoupled
test structure. For higher frequencies, a significant attenuation of amplitude response is observed, and phase
response tends to recover its trend.
Degradation of system performance, from the viewpoints of both perturbation of the frequency response
and reduction of the stability margins, is clearly significant when the structure/table mass ratio is large or
structural damping is low. For the limiting case of an undamped structure, the amplitude response is zero at a
frequencyf,, i.e. the platform remains stationary (this would happen only in the case of a pure harmonic signal
input to an ideal system; in 'real' systems with earthquake command signals this will not be true; however,
amplitude in the frequency band nearf, will be extremely low). The perturbation on the response is also larger
for structures with natural vibration frequencies close to system resonant frequency.
Shaking table-structure interaction effects are noticeably lower on seismic simulator systems with high
resonant frequencies: the flat zone of the amplitude response, which determines the frequency band for
satisfactory operation, is wider and stability margins are larger. It thus seems clear that seismic simulators
should be designed to have the highest possible resonant frequency. This could be accomplished by reducing
table mass (which would give higher mass ratio for a given structure, but table mass could always be increased
488 M. BLONDET AND C. ESPARZA

01
U

-
c
._
n
1

E
a

- 9.1
v)
01
? t

0 5 10 I5 20 25

Frequency ( Hz 1

Figure 15. Effect of actuator-platform resonant frequency on frequency response of seismic simulators

in the unlikely event where a reduction of mass ratio was desired). Force requirements for the actuator would
also be reduced, since more of the available force would be used to excite the test specimen, instead of
overcoming platform inertia.

CONCLUSIONS
1. It was possible to derive analytical expressions for the transfer function and stability conditions of
displacement-controlled, one DOF seismic simulators with acceptable accuracy with respect to
experimental measurements.
2. Shaking table-structure interaction is basically of a mechanical nature and therefore depends on the
physical characteristics of both seismic simulator and test structure. It seems possible, therefore, to study
the main aspects of the interaction problem in more complicated systems from a mechanical viewpoint.
3. The control system does not eliminate response degradation caused by interaction effects.
 SHAKING TABLE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION 489

-1
I
R.
/
I

Figure 16. Effect of actuator-platform resonant frequency on stability margins of seismic simulators

4. Interaction effects are manifested by a peak-notch distortion in the amplitude frequency response, with
maximum attenuation occurring precisely at the natural vibration frequency of the test structure. This is
particularly inconvenient, since the purpose of seismic simulation tests is to excite the structure at its own
frequency in order to cause damage.
5. Degradation of the response of seismic simulators due to interaction effects increases with structure/sys-
tem mass and resonant frequency ratios and decreases with structural damping.
6. It seems evident that seismic simulation systems should be designed to have minimum platform mass and
high resonant frequency.
7. Additional research, both experimental and analytical, should be performed to verify the results
presented here and to include more accurate models of both shaking table system and test structure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study has been carried out at PUC, under the supervision of Prof. Marcia1 Blondet, as the Master's thesis
of Mr. Carlos Esparza. The support of the Department of Civil Engineering and the Structures Laboratory is
gratefully acknowledged.
Mr. Blondet would like to thank specially Mr. Paul Jeunink, from Delft University, and Prof. Ray Clough,
from the University of California at Berkeley, for their continuous support and encouragement to study
seismic stimulation systems and for many helpful and stimulating discussions.
490 M.BLONDET A N D C. ESPARZA

REFERENCES
1. M. Blondet, ‘RFS shaking table performance tests’, Report to Prof. R. W. Clough, Catholic University of Peru, Lima, 1984.
2. Y. Ghanaat and R. W. Clough, ‘Shaking table tests of a tubular frame model’, Report No. EERC 82/02, University of California,
Berkeley, CA 1982.
3. C. Esparza, ‘Shaking table-structure interaction effects during seismic simulation tests’, Master of Engineering Thesis (in Spanish),
Catholic University of Peru, Lima, 1985.
4. 1. P. Jeunink,’A seismic simulator system at PUCP’, Meettechniek Report No 322-8145, Stevin-Laboratorium, Delft University, 1983.
5. H. E. Merrit, Hydraulic Control Systems, Wiley. New York, 1967.
6. R. C. Dorf, Modern Control Systems, Addison-Wesley, Mass., 1980.
7. R. W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics oiStructures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975.
8. D. Rea, S. Abedi-Hayati and Y. Takahashi, ‘Dynamic analysis ofelectrohydraulicshakingtables, Report No. EERC 77/29, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, 1977.