JOINT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

7th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering (7CUEE) &

5th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering (5ICEE)
March 3-5, 2010, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

FULL -SCALE SHAKE TABLE TESTS OF 5-STORY STEEL BUILDING

WITH VARIOUS DAMPERS
Kazuhiko Kasai 1), Hiroshi Ito 2), Yoji Ooki 3), Tsuyoshi Hikino4), Koichi Kajiwara4),
Shojiro Motoyui5), Hitoshi Ozaki 6), and Masato Ishii6)
1) Professor, Structural Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
2) Researcher, Structural Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Institute of Technology
3) Assistant Professor, Center on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology
4) Researcher, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention
5) Associate Professor, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology
6) Nikken Sekkei Ltd.
kasai@serc.titech.ac.jp, ito.h.ac@m.titech.ac.jp, ooki@serc.titech.ac.jp, hikino@bosai.go.jp, kaji@bosai.go.jp,
motoyui.s.aa@m.titech.ac.jp, ozaki@nikken.co.jp, ishiim@nikken.co.jp

Abstract: Realistic simulations of earthquake responses were conducted in March 2009 for the full-scale 5-story
building specimens with dampers using the E-Defense, the worlds largest three-dimensional shake table. The building
was tested repeatedly, inserting and replacing each of 4 damper types, i.e., steel damper, oil damper, viscous damper, and
viscoelastic damper. This paper discusses test concept, method and test results as well as details of the 5-story building
specimen. Performance improvement by the dampers will be addressed for moderately tall buildings that constitute a
major portion of the building stock.

1. INTRODUCTION
The E-Defense shaking table facility, whose
construction was completed in early 2005, is the largest
earthquake simulator capable of subjecting full-scale
structures to the strongest earthquakes recorded in the world.
Using the facility, three major research projects were
completed on geostructures, wooden buildings, and
reinforced concrete buildings, respectively. Currently,
projects on steel buildings and bridges are being pursued.
Figure 1 shows overall organizations for the steel building
project that focuses on moment-resisting frames, innovative
methods for new or existing buildings, nonstructural
elements, and protective systems. It is pursued by four
working groups (WGs) shown in Figure 1.
NIED
E-Defense
Steel Bldg. Project
Oversight Committee
Steel Bldg. Project
Executive Committee

Bldg. Collapse
Simulation WG

Damper & Isolation

Systems WG

Analysis Method
& Verification WG

Test Bed & Innovat.

System WG

Figure 1. Organization of E-Defense Steel Project

This paper addresses the work of Damper and Isolation

Systems WG. This paper discusses test concept, method
and test results, as well as details of the 5-story building.
The building was tested repeatedly, inserting and re-placing
each of 4 damper types, i.e., steel damper, oil damper,
viscous damper, and viscoelastic damper. Moderately tall
buildings that constitute a major portion of the building
stock will be considered.
2. TEST CONCEPT AND METHOD
2.1 Validation of Passive Control Technology
Japan has constructed the largest number of
passively-controlled buildings, and is believed to have
conducted the most extensive research to realize various
control schemes. A variety of dampers are being produced
by more than twenty manufacturers and more than ten
general construction companies in Japan.
Numerous
technical papers on the schemes are also published.
Most major Japanese buildings designed and
constructed after the 1995 Kobe earthquake are either
base-isolated or passively-controlled in order to better
protect the building and its contents. However, because of
their short histories, the schemes have never been attested
under the major and catastrophic quakes, while they are
increasingly used in Japan. Thus, it is extremely important
to validate these advanced schemes by realistic experiments,
before occurrence of such earthquakes.

- 11 -

The full-scale shake table test made possible by the

E-Defense would be the best option for such validation.
2.2 Moderately Tall Steel Buildings
A 5-story steel building is considered as the specimen,
since it represents many office buildings seen in Japan; it is
about the tallest of the majority of steel building stock, and;
it tends to deform, if not damped, much more than taller
steel buildings under the major quake. The last point is
discussed below:
Figure 2 shows spectral displacement Sd vs.
acceleration Sa for the design basis earthquake (DBE) and
maximum considered earthquake (MCE). The spectra for
the ground motion recorded at JR Takatori Station during the
1995 Kobe Earthquake are also shown. Damping ratio 5%
is considered. The plots are for elastic responses, but they
will be used here as crude estimates for inelastic responses.
It is customary in Japan to estimate the building
vibration period T by the building height H. Possible range
of T for a building with H=16m, similar to the specimen
height (Sec. 3) is shown in Figure 2. Story drift angle
averaged over the building height avg is also shown, by
approximating it as Sd/(2H/3). The 2H/3 is the effective
height, corresponding to a case of straight mode shape.
It was statistically found that the Japanese code formula
T=0.03H is reasonably accurate for taller Japanese MRFs.
In contrast, for moderately tall MRFs considered here, the
range of T=0.05H to even 0.07H is found to be more
appropriate. From Figure 2, this would lead to avg=0.017
to 0.027 under the DBE, suggesting significant structural
and no-structural damage, as vibration period is longer.
Such an MRF would be vulnerable against stronger
quakes such as the Takatori motion whose spectra are much
larger (Fig. 2). Moreover, consequently large ductility
demand will produce avg larger than estimated by this elastic
approach.
Further, inelastic drift may be highly
non-uniform and concentrate in a particular story, largely
exceeding avg. These were demonstrated by the Building
Collapse Simulation WG (Fig. 1), testing a full-scale 4-story
steel building (H=14.4m) with T=0.063H (Suita 2009,
Yamada 2009). The building collapsed under the Takatori
ground motion, due to the large drift and non-ductile column
behavior at the 1st story.
Accordingly, moderately tall steel MRF tends to be
vulnerable due to its larger deformation caused by the
relatively long vibration period. The Japanese code limits
the story drift angle to 1/200 under the static force estimated
from the acceleration spectrum similar to that of DBE (Fig.
2). However, since acceleration is constant and thus
limited in the shorter period range (Fig. 2), the drift limit is
easily satisfied by the short and moderately tall buildings.
This results in larger flexibility and thus longer vibration of
such buildings.
Based on these, and since simply increasing the MRF
member sizes to control drift would be very uneconomical,
the use of dampers is believed to be an alternative and
attractive option. In spite, passive control is hardly utilized
for short and moderately tall buildings in Japan, since the

code does not yet adequately address such applications.

Moderately tall building, therefore, was selected as the
specimen, because of its significant potential to impact the
above circumstances.
H=16 m

Sa (cm/s2)

2500

T=0.03H
=0.48 s

2000

T=0.07H
=1.02 s

T=0.05H
=0.80 s

1500

Takatori EW
1000

Takatori NS

Maximum
Considered
500

Design
Basis

Sd (cm)

20

40

60

80

100

120

0.019

0.038

0.056

0.075

0.094

0.112

avg (rad)

Figure 2. Displacement vs. Acceleration Spectra (Design

Basis Earthquake, Maximum Considered Earthquake, and
JR Takatori Ground Motions, 5% Damping Ratio)
2.3 Test Method
The objective of the present test is to validate reliability
of the passive control technology by conducting realistic
experiments. Four major types of dampers are selected,
and for the economical reason the building will be tested
repeatedly, inserting and replacing each of the damper types.
In this regard, the frame members must be kept almost
elastic without much residual deformation.
Such
requirement is considered to be important for design of
actual damped building, thus, a practical beam column
connection detail to enhance the elastic limit of the frame is
developed and used for the specimen.
The aforementioned JR Takatori ground motion that
caused collapse of the 4-story specimen is used in order to
demonstrate contrasting performance and appeal to the
community for promoting safer seismic environments. In
this regard, the building without dampers will be tested at
the end of the test series, which is expected to demonstrate
that even the MRF with improved design will suffer
significant deformation and damage in contrast to the
damped case. The JR Takatori motion will be scaled 0.05,
0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 1.0 times, in order to compare the
performance among the four damped frames as well as
un-damped frame at various seismic levels. White noise
excitation as well as free vibration test will be pursued.
Ambient vibration frequencies and modes are also
constantly monitored after erection of steel skelton, until end
of the tests. Dynamic properties at moderate shaking will
be also measured by operating two vibrating machines set on
the building roof, during the break between the shake table
tests.
The number of data channels will be about 1,350 which
is the largest among all the tests performed previously at
E-Defense. The quantities to be measured are as follows:
(1) Strains: columns strains, beam strains, damper

- 12 -

strains, anchor bolt strains, slab reinforcement strains, slab

surface strains, panel zone strains, and cladding support
member strains, etc.
(2) Deformations and Displacements: story drift and
twisting deformation, damper deformation, foundation
rocking, column rotation, beam rotation, ceiling
displacement, stairway displacement, exterior panel in- and
out-of-plane displacement, partition in-plane displacement,
door shear deformation, and ceiling edge and partition
relative displacement, etc.
(3) 3D-Accelerations: shake table accelerations, each
floor accelerations, story drift support accelerations, ceiling
accelerations, and cladding accelerations, etc.
(4) Others: pressure between ceiling edge and partitions,
ceiling hanger reaction force, motion records outside and
inside the building (including axial and transverse damper
deformation) etc.
3. BUILDING FRAMES WITH DAMPERS
Japanese dampers can be categorized into five major

types shown in Figure 3, and four types such as shown in

Figure 4 are considered: they are steel, oil, viscous, and
viscoelastic dampers. The building will have 12 dampers
of the same type with three to four different sizes. For each
type, full-scale dampers of three different sizes were
dynamically tested at Tokyo Institute of Technology (Kasai
et al. 2008). Detailed descriptions for the test results and
analytical models are described elsewhere (Ooki et al. 2009).
As shown in Fig. 5, the building is 5-story with two
bays in each direction. Due to the reduction in budget, the
building is made smaller than originally planned and
described elsewhere (Kasai et al. 2007, 2008). The plan
dimension is 10m 12m, and total height from the upper
surface of a stiff foundation beam is 15.8 m (Fig. 5).
Seismically active weight of the superstructure is 4,730 kN,
including all structural/non-structural components and a
portion of live load (Table 1).
The frame members of the superstructure consist of
either rolled or built-up wide-flange beam sections of 400
mm deep (Table 2), and cold-formed square box column
sections of 350 mm 350 mm (Table 3). Note that each

Figure 3. Five major types of dampers used in Japan.

5523

Restraining Tube

(a)
(a)

Steel Core
Universal Joint

Cylinder

Steel Brace

Gusset Plate

Universal Joint

Gusset Plate

Universal Joint

Cylinder

Steel Brace

(b)
(b)

Universal Joint

(c)
(c)
Steel Brace

Multiple Layers of Polymer

(d)
(d)

Figure 4. Sizes and configurations of 4 types of dampers to be used (between 2nd and 3rd floors)
: (a) steel, (b) oil, (c) viscous, and (d) viscoelastic dampers

- 13 -

span consists of three beam portions, a center beam portion

and two end beam portions that are bolt-connected through
the splice plates on flanges and webs. For the beams of
MRF bays (G2, G3, G12, and G13 in Fig. 5), the the center
portion uses smaller cross section, as indicated by Table 2.
And for the beams of damper bays (G1 and G11), the same
sections are used for all the three portions in order to resist
large axial forces transmitted from the damper. The coupon
tests for all members indicate actual yield stresses of the
columns and beams were in average about 1.2 times the
nominal values (Table 4).
All the beam and column connections will be a
fully-restrained type. For the beams of MRF bays, the
flange is haunched to increase yield rotation and to delay
onset of yielding. And for the beams of damper bays,
haunch was considered unnecessary due to large sections
created by the gusset plate (Kasai et al. 2009).
Figure 6 shows exterior views of the building. The

precast light-weight curtain walls and glass curtain walls are

provided to the 1st and 2nd story levels only. The walls are
not attached to the damper bays for ease of
dismantling/mantling the dampers. Figure 7 shows four
types of damper inserted in the building specimen.
The steel deck with normal concrete on top will be
considered and fully composite beams will be created (Fig.
8). The concrete thickness is 80 mm above the corrugated
metal deck of 75 mm high. The stairway (Fig. 5) is
detailed to slide during shaking, thus, it does not produce
significant twisting against building. At every story level
above the 1st, partitions with doors are constructed. Two
types of ceilings with sprinkler systems, as well as
mechanical equipment are placed at some story levels.
Figure 9 shows measurement system of damper stroke
and displacement of damper brace.

y
Damper
Damper

C2

G2 B

G2

C2

G11

(D2)

G13

G11

5,000

C1

10,000

G3

G1
C3

(D3)

Dampe

G2

C1

963.4

Steel
frame
111.6

Exterior
wall
127.8

Interior
wall
20.3

Live
load
81.7

150.0

Total
weight
1454.8

436.2

99.5

100.3

26.5

98.8

37.5

798.8

4F

436.2

117.4

100.3

26.5

98.8

37.5

816.7

3F

436.2

122.7

100.3

26.5

98.8

37.5

822.0

2F

436.2

131.3

108.8

28.7

98.8

37.5

841.3

Total

2708.2

582.5

537.5

128.5

476.9

300.0

4733.6

Floor

Floor

RF
5F

Others

G12

G12
C1

C3

G13

C2

5,000

Table 1. Breakdown of seismically active weight for

the full-scale 5-story building specimen (Unit: kN)

G2

C1

5th fl.
G1

C3

G3

G1

C2

C3

3,000

165

3rd fl.
C3

2nd fl.
G1
C3

3,850

G3
C2

C3

G11
C3

Damper

150

G12
C1

C2

(D2)
G11

C3

C2

3rd fl.
G12
C1

G11
C3

C2

2nd fl.
G12
C1

G11
C3

C2

1st fl.

G3

900

900

1st fl.

165

165

15,835

C3

C2

G12
C1

4th fl.

G1

C2

165

3,000
3,000
3,850

G3

C3

G11
C3

5th fl.

165

Damper

(D3)

G12
C1

165

C3

3,000

G3
C2

4th fl.

15,835

C3

165

G1
C3

2,985

G3

Roof

3,000

150

5 000

C2

165

3,000

2,985

7Roof
000

G1

7,000

5,000

G12

G11

5,000

5,000

12 000

Figure 5. Plan and elevations for full-scale 5-story building specimen

- 14 -

Table 2. List of cross section sizes for all girders

Floor

G1(Full portion)

G2(End portion)

G2(Center portion)

G3(End portion)

G3(Center portion)

RF

H-400x200x9x12

BH-400x200x9x12

H-400x200x9x12

BH-400x200x12x16

H-400x200x9x12

5F

BH-400x200x12x16

BH-400x200x12x16

H-400x200x9x12

BH-400x200x12x16

H-400x200x9x12

4F

BH-400x200x12x19

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

4F

H-400x200x12x22

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

2F

H-400x200x12x22

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

1F

BH-900x500x16x28

Floor

G11(Full portion)

G12(End portion)

G12(Center portion)

G13(End portion)

G13(Center portion)

RF

H-400x200x9x12

BH-400x200x9x12

H-400x200x9x12

BH-400x200x9x12

H-400x200x9x12

5F

BH-400x200x12x16

BH-400x200x12x16

H-400x200x9x12

BH-400x200x12x16

H-400x200x9x12

4F

BH-400x200x12x16

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

4F

BH-400x200x12x19

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

2F

H-400x200x12x22

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

BH-400x200x12x19

H-400x200x9x16

1F

BH-900x500x16x28

BH-900x500x16x28

BH-900x500x16x28

Table 3. List of cross section sizes for all columns

Story

C1

C2

BH-900x500x16x28

BH-900x500x16x28

Table 4. Yield and ultimate strengths

of steel used (actual vs. nominal values)
y(N/mm

C3

Column

346-398

u(N/mm

430-470

-350x350x12x12

-350x350x12x12

-350x350x12x12

-350x350x12x12

-350x350x12x12

-350x350x12x12

-350x350x16x16

-350x350x16x16

-350x350x19x19

(SN490B)

325

490

-350x350x16x16

-350x350x19x19

-350x350x19x19

Gusset plate

342-365

510-520

-350x350x19x19

-350x350x22x22

-350x350x22x22

(SN490B)

325

490

(BCR295)

295

400

Beam

331-422

510-557

Figure 6. Exterior views of the building specimen under construction

(Dec. 2008 and Jan. 2009)

- 15 -

Figure 7. Four types of damper inserted in the building specimen (Feb. and Mar. 2009)

Figure 8. Interior views of the building specimen under construction (Dec. 2008 and Jan. 2009)

- 16 -

Figure 9. Measurement system of damper stroke and displacement of whole damper brace (Feb. and Mar. 2009)

4. OBSERVED RESPONSES
Measured responses of main structural components
such as dampers, frame and system during the shake table
test are as follows.
Figure 10 shows comparison between the story shear
based on inertia forces and the story shear based on member
forces at 1st, 3rd, and 5th story in x-direction for the building
with steel dampers under the 100% Takatori motion. As
Figure 10 shows, both story shear based on inertia forces and
story shear based on member forces match well. In
addition, the former is about 10% larger than the latter
probably because of the contribution from non-structural
components.
Figure 11 shows relationship between damper forces
and damper stroke of each of the four types of dampers at
1st story under the 15%, 50% and, 100% Takatori motions.
As shown in Figure 11(a), steel dampers behave elastically
under 15% Takatori motion, and elasto-plastically under
50% and 100% Takatori motions. As Figure 11(c) shows,
oil dampers behave linearly under 15% and 50% Takatori
motions, and non-linearly under 100% Takatori motion due
to working of relief valve. As shown in Figure 11(d),
viscoelastic dampers behave linearly regardless of shaking
intensity.
Figure 12 shows relationship between story shear based
on inertia force and story drift for the building with steel
dampers. As Figure 12 shows, hysteresis curves at 1st and

3rd stories with dampers indicate significant energy

dissipation by the steel damper. On the other hand,
hysteresis curve at 5th story without damper indicates elastic
behavior.
Figure 13 shows peak responses such as story shear,
story drift angle and floor acceleration of building specimen
with four types of dampers under 50% and 100% Takatori
motion. In addition, peak responses of building specimen
without damper are shown in Figure 13 for comparison.
Note that, for the 100% Takatori motion, they are
extrapolated as 2 times those for 50% Takatori, because
shaking was limited up to the level of 70% Takatori motion
for the safety reason. As shown in Fig. 13, story drift angle
under 100% Takatori motion for the building with each type
of damper is less than the design target value of 1% radian.
As a whole, peak responses of the building having dampers
are considerably less than those without dampers.
The recorded damper deformation is used as input for
analytical prediction of damper force, and thus-obtained
damper force appears to match well with that recorded
during the test. Figure 14 shows comparison of these two
damper forces for each damper type. Analysis gives good
estimation for viscous, oil, and viscoelastic dampers except
for the steel damper, that is not very accurately predicted by
using the bilinear model. Analysis model including
Bauschinger effect, strain hardening and dependency for
velocity and frequency has been developed for improved
accuracy.

- 17 -

Calculated from inertia forces

Calculated from member forces

(kN)

2000
1000

5th
story

-1000

10

12

14

16

18

10

12

14

16

18

10

12

14

16

18

20

(s)

-2000

(kN)

3000
1500

3rd
story

0
-1500

20

(s)

-3000

(kN)

4000
2000

1st
story

0
-2000

20

(s)

-4000

Figure 10. Comparison between story shear based on inertia forces and story shear member forces
(with Steel dampers, Takatori 100%, X-Dir.)
Takatori 15%
(kN)

800
400

X-Dir.
(D1)

-20

-10

10

-400

Takatori 50%

Yield
strength
20

(mm)

-20

800

-10

-10

400

10

20

(mm)

-20

-10

(kN)

10

-800

Yield
strength

20

(mm)

-20

1600

(kN)

10

20

(mm)

-20

-10

10

20

(mm)

-20

-10

400

10

-400

20

(mm)

(kN)

10

20

(mm)

Y-Dir.
(D3)

-20

-10

X-Dir.
(D1)

-20

-10

1000

(kN)

500
0

-500

20

-20

-10

0
-800

-1600

10

-500

(kN)

1600

800
-10

20

(mm)

-20

10

20

(mm)

-10

10

20

(mm)

-20

-10

(kN)

-800

(kN)

10

1600

20

(mm)

-1600

20

(mm)

-20

-10

-10

10

-400

20

(mm)

-800

(kN)

1600

(kN)

800
0

10

20

(mm)

-20

-10

10

-800

-1600

20

(mm)

-1600

10

20

(mm)

X-Dir.
(D1)

-20

-10

-20

-10

0
-800

Takatori 50%

(kN)

800

800

400

400

10

-400

20

(mm)

-20

-10

(kN)

10

20

(mm)

Y-Dir.
(D3)

-1600

-10

0
-800

-1600

(c) Oil damper

800

(kN)

10

20

(mm)

-20

-10

10

20

(mm)

-20

-10

0
-800

10

-400

(kN)

(kN)

800
0

10

20

(mm)

-20

-1600

-10

10

-800
-1600

(d) Viscoelastic damper

Figure 11. Relationship between axial damper forces and damper stroke of four types of dampers (1st story)

- 18 -

20

(mm)

-800
1600

800
0

(kN)

400

-800
1600

800
-20

Takatori 100%

(kN)

-400

-800
1600

800
0

10

-800

Takatori 15%

-1000

800
0

-20

-1600

-500

-1000

1600

-20

1000

-1000

Y-Dir.
(D3)

(kN)

500

(mm)

800
0

(kN)

400

-800

-800

Takatori 100%

10

800

(b) Viscous damper

500
0

Takatori 100%

(kN)

-400

800

-1600

Takatori 50%

(kN)

1000

-10

1600

(a) Steel damper

Takatori 15%

-20

-800

-800

-1600

800

400

1600

800

-800

-1600

X-Dir.
(D1)

Takatori 50%

(kN)

800

-800
1600

800
-10

(kN)

-400

-800

800
-20

800

400

-400

-800
1600

Y-Dir.
(D3)

(kN)

Takatori 15%

Takatori 100%

20

(mm)

Takatori 50%(X) Takatori 100%(X) Takatori 50%(Y) Takatori 100%(Y)

4000

(kN)

4000

2000

5th
story

-2000
-4000

(mm)

-4000

4000

2000

1st
story

(mm)

(mm)

-2000
-4000

(mm)

-4000

0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0

4000

2000

(kN)

0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0

(mm)

-2000

-4000

(mm)

2000

0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0

-2000

10 20 30

-2000
-4000

(kN)

4000

(mm)

(kN)

0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0

-2000

(kN)

(mm)

2000

0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0

2000

0
-30 -20 -10 0

4000

2000

-2000

10 20 30

-2000
-4000

(kN)

4000

-4000

(kN)

(mm)

-4000

(kN)

0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0

-2000

0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0

-2000

2000

0
-30 -20 -10 0

4000

-2000

4000

2000

3rd
story

(mm)

(kN)

2000

0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0

-4000

(kN)

4000

2000

0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0

(mm)

(kN)

4000

2000

0
-30 -20 -10 0

4000

(kN)

-4000

10 20 30

(mm)

-2000
-4000

Figure 12. Relationship between story shear based on inertia force and story drift (with steel dampers)

Story Shear

Floor Acceleration

(kN)
0

3000

6000

(rad)
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

(kN)
0

3000

6000

Design
target
1 0.01rad
0

0.005

Story

(m/s 2)
0

10
20
with damper without damper

X-Dir.
Y-Dir.

(rad)
0.01

0.015

X-Dir.
Y-Dir.

2
1

10

3000

Story Shear

(rad)
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

2
1

20

6000

(m/s 2)
0

(kN)

(kN)
0

3000

(a) Steel damper

6000

Design
target
1 0.01rad
0

0.005

Story Drift Angle

(rad)
0.01

0.015

Floor Acceleration

Story Shear

Story Drift Angle

5

3000

6000

(rad)
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

1
0

(kN)
0

3000

6000

Design
target
1 0.01rad
0

0.005

Story

(m/s 2)
0

(rad)
0.015

X-Dir.
Y-Dir.

X-Dir.
Y-Dir.

2
1

10
20
with damper without damper

0.01

X-Dir.
Y-Dir.

(m/s 2)
0

10

20

Floor Acceleration

X-Dir.
Y-Dir.

(kN)

10
20
with damper without damper

(m/s 2)
0

(b) Viscous damper

Story

Story

Floor Acceleration

Story

Story Drift Angle

Story

Story Drift Angle

5

Story

Story

Story Shear
5

10

3000

(c) Oil damper

(rad)
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

2
1

20

6000

(m/s 2)
0

(kN)

(kN)
0

3000

6000

Design
target
1 0.01rad
0

0.005

(m/s 2)
0

X-Dir.
Y-Dir.

(rad)
0.01

0.015

X-Dir.
Y-Dir.

2
1

(m/s 2)
0

(d) Viscoelastic damper

Figure 13. Peak responses of building specimen with four types of dampers

- 19 -

10
20
with damper without damper

10

20

Steel

Viscous

(kN)

1600

Oil

(kN)

1600

(kN)

1600

800

800

Viscoelastic
(kN)

1600

800

800

Test
-24

-12

0
-800

12

24 -24

(mm)

-1600

-12

-800

12

24 -24

(mm)

-12

0
-800

-1600

-1600

12

24 -24

(mm)

-12

0
-800

12

24

(mm)

Analysis

-1600

Figure 14. Validation study for analysis model of four types of dampers (Takatori 100%)

5. DYNAMIC PROPERTIES
As described above, the building was subjected many
table motions, and changes in dynamic properties of the
building were successfully monitored through the extensive
measurement explained earlier.
Figure. 15 shows the cracks observed from the second
floor concrete slab, prior to the tests, after the tests with steel
dampers, viscous dampers, oil dampers, and viscoelastic
dampers, and the tests without dampers, respectively.
Cracks formed when the story drift reached approximately
0.5% rad. and significant increase in cracks was observed
after the test with steel damper using 100% Takatori motion,
as well as the test without dampers using 70% Takatori
motion.

At each story level, story shear force is obtained from

member forces (Fig. 10) excluding those of dampers, and it
is compared with the story drift to obtain the story stiffness.
Figure 16 shows change of thus-estimated story stiffness at
each story level. The frame had the largest stiffness before
the test, and about 10 to 15% loss in stiffness occurred at the
end of all the tests. The cracks in the floor slabs noted
above could be major source of such change.
Non-structural components are partially attached to the
building. As Figures 6 to 8 show, curtain walls and ALC
(autoclaved light-weight concrete) panels are attached to the
exterior surface of the buildings at the 1st and 2nd story level
except where the dampers are installed. The interior
partitions with doors (e.g., Fig. 8) are also provided except
for the 1st story level. The stiffness contribution of these
non-structural components were estimated by using the
difference between the story shear forces obtained from
inertia force and those from member forces (Fig. 10).
Figure 17 shows change of thus-estimated stiffness of
the non-structural components at each story level. The
peak average story drift, the value obtained by averaging the
drifts of all stories is also shown for every test conducted
(Fig. 17 above), in order to indicate intensity of shaking.
It should be noted that the stiffness of nonstructural
components is as much as 0.3 times that of the steel frame, at
earlier tests. Thereafter, the former deteriorates much more
rapidly than the latter, and as much as 70% loss of the
non-structural component is observed from Figure 17. The
loss is significant when large shaking took place.
Although not shown, energy dissipated by the
non-structural components are also estimated. As the
smallest energy contribution, it was only 0.1 times the
overall energy dissipation for the building with oil dampers
that showed about 20% damping ratio. However, the
contribution increases for the building that indicated smaller
damping ratio, using different dampers. As the largest
energy contribution, it was as much as 0.3 times the overall
energy dissipation for the building without dampers.

Figure 15 Cracks on second floor concrete slab

- 20 -

(kN/mm)

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

5th
5
Level

3rd
3
Level

4th
4
Level

2nd
2
Level

1st1
Level

ug

un

With Steel Dampers

Viscous Dampers

Oil Dampers

VE Dampers

70

50

20

STEP

50

100

15

STEP

50

100

15

STEP

50

100

15

STEP

STEP

50

100

STEP

40

STEP

15

STEP

STEP = 3 SineWaves
% = Scale of Takatori Motion

No Dampers

Figure 16 Change in steel frame lateral stiffness

(x-direction)
0.01

(rad.)

Story Drift Averaged Thru Height

0
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

5th
5
Leve
l

4th
4
Level

3rd
3
Level

2nd
2
Level

1st
1
Level

STEP
= 3 SineWaves
STEP=
%15%=15%
= Scale of Takatori Motion

- 21 -

Disp. (mm)

Vibration periods and damping ratios are also estimated

from the responses recorded. Several different tests and/or
evaluation methods were employed. In this paper, only the
shake table tests will be referred to, and a basic system
identification technique using real modes is used. The
control of the shake table considers interaction between the
specimen and table, and it is used to calibrate shaking of the
subsequent test. The target translational acceleration
histories along x-, y-, and z-axes are given, and target
rotational acceleration with respect to the three axes are set
zero. However, due the shake table occasionally rocks with
respect to the x- and y-axes (Fig. 18), especially at the earlier
shaking where little calibration is done.
Significant error will develop when one considers the
transfer function between only the shake table horizontal
acceleration and building response acceleration. It is
necessary to decompose the response acceleration into the
acceleration due to rigid-body rotation caused by table
rocking and acceleration relative to the shake table surface.
A technique to consider this was developed by the writers.
It will be explained elsewhere and only the results will be
shown in this paper.
Figure 19 shows the recorded roof displacement of the
building with or without dampers. Prediction using the
writers system identification technique is also shown.
Remarkable correration is obtained between the prediction
and test result. In spite of different nonlinear behavior of

80
40
0
-40
-80
-120
80

Observed

With Steel Damper,

15% Takatori

30
20
10
0
-10
-20

0 With Steel Damper,

Estimation

10

Time (s)

15

0 With Viscous Damper, 5

10

Time (s)

15

10

Time (s)

15

0 With VE Damper,

10

Time (s)

15

0 Without Dampers

10

Time (s)

15

10

Time (s)

15

100% Takatori

Disp. (mm)

Figure 17 Change in non-structural components

lateral stiffness (x-direction)

Disp. (mm)

No Dampers

100% Takatori

-80

120
80
40
0
-40
-80

Disp. (mm)

70

50

20

STEP

100

50

STEP

15

VE Dampers

Disp. (mm)

Oil Dampers

100

50

15

STEP

100

50

15

STEP

STEP

Viscous Dampers

the damper and the building, the linear identification method

assuming real vibration mode still produces excellent results.
Note however that the method showed less accuracy for the
frame without dampers at the 70% Takatori motion,
probably due to yielding of the members and connections of
the building.

80

With Oil Damper,

100% Takatori

100% Takatori

-80

100
50
0
-50
-100
-150

50% Takatori

Disp. (mm)

With Steel Dampers

100

50

STEP

STEP

40%

15

Figure 18 Rocking of E-Defense shake table

STEP

(kN/mm)

0.005

Figure 19 Roof displacements: test vs. prediction using

system ID and modal superposition

With Steel Dampers

0.7

With Viscous Dampers

With Oil Dampers

With Viscoelastic Dampers

Without Dampers

0.30

Period

0.6

0.25

0.15
0.3
0.2

0.10

Damping Ratio

70%

WNX

50%

50%

30%

5%

20%

WNX

WNX

83%

100%

70%

50%

50%

40%

25%

15%

WNX

WNX

83%

100%

70%

50%

50%

40%

25%

15%

WNX

WNX

83%

100%

70%

50%

50%

40%

25%

15%

WNX

WNX

70%

100%

50%

40%

0.00
15%

0.05

0
WNX

0.1

40%

Period (s)

0.20

0.4

Damping Ratio

0.5

Figure 20 Vibration periods and damping ratios in x-direction

Figure 20 shows the vibration periods and damping

ratios obtained for all the tests, using the above-mentioned
technique. The building with steel dampers shows shortest
period and smallest damping ratio among those with
dampers, and they become longer and larger, respectively, at
larger shaking. The building with oil dampers shows the
largest damping ratio of about 17%, and the smallest
responses (Fig. 13). Note that the oil dampers were
somewhat over-sized compared with other types dampers,
which is one of the reasons for the above trend. The
building with either viscous dampers or viscoelastic dampers
shows damping ratios of about 10%, and performed well.

6. SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS

Realistic three-dimensional shaking table tests were
conducted for full-scale 5-story building specimens with
(March 2009) or without (April 2009) dampers. This paper
has described the test concept, method and test results, as
well as details of the 5-story building specimen.

Kasai, K., Ooki, Y., Motoyui S., Takeuchi T., and Sato, E. (2007).
E-Defense Tests on Full-Scale Steel Buildings: Part 1
Experiments Using Dampers and Isolators, ASCE Str.
Congress, Long Beach, CA, May 16-19
Yamada, S., Suita, K., Tada, M., Kasai, K., Matsuoka, Y., and
Shimada, Y. (2009). Full Scale Shaking Table Collapse
Ex-periment on 4-Story Steel Moment Frame: Part 1 Outline of
the Experiment, STESSA 2009, Philadelphia, USA.
Suita, K., Yamada, S., Kasai, K., Shimada Y., Tada, M., and
Matsuoka, Y. (2009). Full Scale Shaking Table Collapse
Experiment on 4-Story Steel Moment Frame: Part 2 Detail of
Collapse Behavior, STESSA 2009, Philadelphia, USA.
Kasai, K., Ooki, Y., Motoyui S., Takeuchi T., Kajiwara, K., and Sato,
E. (2008). Results of Recent E-Defense Tests on Full-Scale
Steel Buildings: Part 3 Experiments on Dampers and Frame
Subassemblies, ASCE Structures Congress, Vancouver, B.C.,
April 24-26.
Ohsaki M., Kasai, K., Hikino, T., and Matsuoka, Y. (2008a).
Overview of 2007 E-Defense Blind Analysis Contest Re-sults,
14WCEE , Beijing, Oct. 12-17
Ohsaki M., Kasai, K., Yamamoto, M., Kiriyama, S. (2008b). 2-D
Analysis Methods for 2007 Blind Analysis Contest, 14WCEE ,
Beijing, Oct. 12-17
Ohsaki M., Kasai, K., Thiagarajan, G., Yang, Y., and Komiya, Y.
(2008c). 3-D Analysis Methods for 2007 Blind Analysis
Contest, 14WCEE , Beijing, Oct. 12-17

Acknowledgements:
This study is a part of NEES/E-Defense collaborative research
program on steel structures, and was pursued by the Damper and
Isolation WG. The Japan team leader for the overall program and
the leader for the WG is Kazuhiko Kasai, Tokyo Institute of
Technology. The WG members not listed as the authors also
contributed to the present effort, and their contributions are greatly
appreciated. The authors also acknowledge the financial support
provided by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and
Disaster Prevention (NIED).
References:
Kasai, K., Motoyui, S., Ozaki, H., Ishii, M., Ito, H., Kajiwara, K.,
and Hikino, T. (2009). Full-Scale Tests of Passively-Controlled
5-Story Steel Building Using E-Defense Shake Table, Part 1:
Test concept, method, and building specimen, STESSA 2009,
Philadelphia.
Kasai, K., Ooki, Y., Ito, H., and Motoyui, S., Hikino, T. and Sato, E.
(2009). Full-Scale Tests of Passively-Controlled 5-Story Steel
Building Using E-Defense Shake Table, Part 2: Preliminary
Analysis Results, STESSA 2009, Philadelphia.
Ooki, Y., Kasai, K., Motoyui, S., Kaneko, K., Kajiwara, K., and
Hikino, T. (2009) Full-Scale Tests of Passively-Controlled
5-Story Steel Building Using E-Defense Shake Table, Part 3:
Full-Scale Tests for Dampers and Beam-Column Subassemblies,
STESSA 2009, Philadelphia.

- 22 -