Monografia

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265293302
DESIGN OF A LARGE-SCALE DYNAMIC AND

PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TESTING FACILITY
BOOK JULY 2005
DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3557.3121
CITATIONS
READS
75
5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
G. M. Calvi
Alberto Pavese
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di P
University of Pavia
121 PUBLICATIONS 2,493 CITATIONS
42 PUBLICATIONS 173 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Paola Ceresa
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di P
13 PUBLICATIONS 101 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Alberto Pavese

Retrieved on: 12 January 2016
DESIGN OF A LARGE-SCALE DYNAMIC

AND PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TESTING
FACILITY
Gian Michele Calvi

Professor of Structural Engineering
University of Pavia, Department of Structural Mechanics
Alberto Pavese
Associate Professor
University of Pavia, Department of Structural Mechanics
Paola Ceresa
Doctoral Student
European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk
Filippo Dacarro
Laboratory Engineer
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering
Carlo G. Lai
Associate Researcher
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering
Carlo Beltrami
Graduate Researcher
European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk
Pavia, Italy, July 2005
Nessuna parte di questo libro pu essere riprodotta o trasmessa in qualsiasi forma o con qualsiasi mezzo elettronico,
meccanico o altro senza lautorizzazione scritta dei proprietari dei diritti e delleditore.
Copyright 2005 - IUSS Press

prodotto da:
Multimedia Cardano
Via Cardano, 14 - 27100 Pavia, Italy
Tel.: (+39) 0382.539776 - fax: (+39) 0382.306406 - e-mail: multimediacardano@multimediacardano.191.it
distribuito da:
IUSS Press
IUSS, Collegio Giasone del Maino, Via Luino, 4 - 27100 Pavia, Italy
Tel.: (+39) 0382.375841 - fax: (+39) 0382.375899 - email: info@iusspress.it - web: www.iusspress.it
PREFACE
This manuscript provides a relatively detailed description of the design of the highperformance uniaxial shaking table as well as of the reaction walls and strong floor at the
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE,
Pavia, Italy). The latter was founded by the Italian National Civil Protection Department,
the Italian National Institute for Geophysics and Volcanology, the University of Pavia
and the Institute for Advanced Study of Pavia, under the main financial backing of the
first of these four partners.
The work described in the current publication has benefited significantly from the input
of a number of collaborators who have worked closely with the authors in the design of
the dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility. Within this context, the following
contributors are acknowledged:
Ms. Maria Pia Scovenna for the precious and most valuable assistance with the analysis
and design of the laboratory, the preparation of a very large number of technical
drawings and the set-up and construction of the laboratory;
Dr. Claudio Strobbia, for his contribution to the studies that targeted the evaluation of
the dynamic soil-structure interaction effects;
Ms. Maria Rota, for her contribution to the structural analyses of the testing facilities;
Mr. Paolo Paruta, from Tecno-cut Srl, Mr. Gianni Lova, from Hydros Srl, Mr. Al J.
Clark, Mr. Dave Kusner and Mr. Carlo Maria Ornati, all from MTS Systems
Corporation, for their important roles in the design of the shaking table and pseudodynamic testing facilities;
the staff at Cielle Prefabbricati SpA, at Ninive Casseformi Srl and at Alga SpA, for the
physical construction of the laboratory, a task for which the contribution of lab
technicians Mr. Michele DAdamo and Mr. Franco Barzon is also very much
acknowledged.
The authors would also like to thank Dr. Rui Pinho, for his assistance in the organisation
and writing-up of this report, as well as Mr. Arun Menon, who kindly volunteered to
proof-review the final draft of this manuscript. The contributions of Dr. Adam J. Crewe
and Dr. Giovanni Fabbrocino, who kindly providing material related to the shaking tables
of the University of Bristol (UK) and University of Naples Federico II (Italy),
respectively, are also gratefully acknowledged.
Finally, it is noted that the project has also benefited from the active cooperation with
Reluis, the Italian National Network of Earthquake Engineering University Laboratories.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface .............................................................................................................................................. iii
Table of contents ............................................................................................................................. v
List of figures................................................................................................................................... ix
List of tables ................................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter 1 : Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Overview...................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives and outline ............................................................................................................2
Chapter 2 : The new EUCENTRE facility.................................................................................. 5
2.1 Shaking table testing................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Some existing facilities ..................................................................................................6
2.1.2 Summary of main features of existing shaking tables ............................................13
2.2 Pseudo-dynamic testing........................................................................................................14
2.2.1 Some existing facilities ................................................................................................16
2.2.2 Summary of main features of existing pseudo-dynamic (PsD) facilities.............18
2.3 Definition of the new EUCENTRE testing facility performance targets....................19
2.3.1 Local needs and constraints .......................................................................................19
2.3.2 General description of the EUCENTRE dynamic testing facility
requirements................................................................................................................20
2.3.3 General description of the EUCENTRE pseudo-dynamic testing facility
requirements................................................................................................................23
Chapter 3 : Design of the dynamic testing facility....................................................................25
3.1 Relevant issues for the design of the dynamic testing facility ........................................25
3.1.1 Specifications for the shaking table design ..............................................................25
3.1.2 Specifications for the system restraining the platform motion ............................28
3.1.3 Specifications for the reaction mass design .............................................................30
3.1.4 Specifications for the isolation and damping system design.................................31
3.1.5 Regions of flexibility....................................................................................................33
3.2 Design of the structural and mechanical arrangement of the shaking table ................33
3.2.1 Final configuration of the EUCENTRE shaking table .........................................33
3.2.2 Design revision history ...............................................................................................40
3.3 Design of the system restraining the motion of the platform........................................41
3.3.1 Final configuration.......................................................................................................41
3.4 Design of the reaction mass.................................................................................................46
3.4.1 Final configuration.......................................................................................................46
3.5 Design of the isolation system ............................................................................................51
3.5.1 Final solution ................................................................................................................51
vi
Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

3.6 Numerical verifications.........................................................................................................53
3.6.1 Dynamic response characteristics .............................................................................53
3.6.2 Deformability of the testing system..........................................................................57
3.6.3 Short pier: overturning moment effects...................................................................61
3.6.4 Tall pier: overturning moment effects......................................................................65
3.6.5 Short and tall piers: overturning moment and longitudinal force effects...........67
3.6.6 Effects of the maximum design loads ......................................................................71
Chapter 4 : Design of the pseudo-dynamic testing facility ..................................................... 75
4.1 Relevant issues for the design of the PsD facility ............................................................75
4.2 Design of the structural arrangement of the EUCENTRE PsD apparatus ................76
4.3 Stiffness evaluation of the PsD apparatus.........................................................................77
4.4 Design of the post-tensioning system................................................................................82
4.5 Design of the foundation system........................................................................................93
4.6 Design revision history.........................................................................................................96
Chapter 5 : Actuator system.......................................................................................................101
5.1 Applications of external actions........................................................................................101
5.2 Actuator system of the shaking table ...............................................................................104
5.3 Actuator system of the PsD facility..................................................................................111
5.4 Generation and distribution of the pressurized oil ........................................................112
Chapter 6 : Soil-structure interaction .......................................................................................115
6.1 Aspects of soil-structure interaction investigations .......................................................115
6.2 Definition of dynamic properties of foundation soil ....................................................116
6.3 Static vertical settlement.....................................................................................................119
6.3.1 Theoretical background ............................................................................................119
6.3.2 Static vertical settlement due to the shaking table weight ...................................125
6.3.3 Static vertical settlement due to PsD testing apparatus weight ..........................131
6.4 Dynamic soil-structure interaction problem ...................................................................136
6.4.1 Dynamic soil-structure interaction..........................................................................136
6.4.2 Evaluation of liquefaction potential........................................................................149
Chapter 7 : Closure......................................................................................................................153
7.1 Design of the testing facility ..............................................................................................153
7.1.1 Design of the shaking table......................................................................................153
7.1.2 Design of the PsD apparatus ...................................................................................153
7.1.3 Soil-structure interaction problem ..........................................................................153
7.2 Future work..........................................................................................................................154
References.....................................................................................................................................155
APPENDIX A Choice of the structural layout ..................................................................163
APPENDIX B Welding technology for the EUCENTRE shaking table ......................167
Table of Contents
vii
APPENDIX C Characteristics of the selected accelerograms..........................................171

APPENDIX D Tensile and compressive stresses for the PsD apparatus (Figure 4.4
and Figure 4.5) .............................................................................................................................173
APPENDIX E Top wall and top pier displacements for the final PsD configuration
(Figure 4.3)....................................................................................................................................175
APPENDIX F Wall displacements at the top and at the force application joints for
1st possible PsD configuration (Figure 4.23)...........................................................................177
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Schematic arrangement of the Master shaking table [ECOEST, 1997]............... 8
Figure 2.2 Arrangement of the three-axis table at LNEC [ECOEST, 1997]......................... 9
Figure 2.3 Arrangement of the six-axes table in Athens [ECOEST, 1997] .........................10
Figure 2.4 Arrangement of the six-axis table in Bristol [ECOEST, 1997] ...........................11
Figure 2.5 The outdoor shaking table at the University of California, San Diego [Van
Den Einde et al., 2004].............................................................................................12
Figure 2.6 An outline of the shaking table system at Miki City [Ogawa et al., 2001] ..........13
Figure 2.7 Reaction-wall at the ELSA laboratory [adapted from Joint Research Centre
- ELSA, 1999] ...........................................................................................................16
Figure 2.8 Multi-Axial Subassemblage Testing (MAST) System [French et al., 2004] ........18
Figure 2.9 Honeycomb-like network of stiffening diaphragms: one possible solution......22
Figure 3.1 Overturning moment contributions. (a) Sum and (b) subtraction of the
contributions of the inertial forces ........................................................................27
Figure 3.2 Possible solution for the hydrostatic bearings .......................................................28
Figure 3.3 Front view of the guide, and bearing areas.............................................................29
Figure 3.4 Guides: side view ........................................................................................................29
Figure 3.5 Components of a typical shaking table [Clark, 1992]............................................32
Figure 3.6 Potential regions of flexibility in a typical shaking table [Crewe, 1998] .............33
Figure 3.7 Final configuration of the shaking table: locations of the hydrostatic
bearings ......................................................................................................................34
Figure 3.8 Honey-comb like network of stiffening diaphragms of the final
configuration: different views (a), (b) and (c) ......................................................36
Figure 3.9 One transversal section of the EUCENTRE shaking table ................................37
Figure 3.10 Plan view of the shaking table without the top plate..........................................37
Figure 3.11 Additional wings to increase the table width from 4000 mm to 5600 mm.....38
Figure 3.12 Sequence of composition by welding....................................................................39
Figure 3.13 Final hydrostatic and mechanical solution to avoid table deformations .........42
Figure 3.14 Bearing friction force vs. shaking table velocity ..................................................43
Figure 3.15 Tolerance errors specified to the manufacturer. Dimensions in mm ..............43
Figure 3.16 Plan view of the anchorage points (circles sign the M60 high-strength
bars) ............................................................................................................................44
Figure 3.17 Sectional views of the first and third fixed guides...............................................45
Figure 3.18 Final configuration of the reaction mass (without the added precast blocks
at the two ends).........................................................................................................48
Figure 3.19 Construction procedure to cast BW-Fixators-RK within reaction mass
(dimensions in cm) ...................................................................................................49
Figure 3.20 First investigated shape of the reaction mass.......................................................50
Figure 3.21 Layout of the isolation system considering T29 CF_Gomma model: 150
air springs...................................................................................................................52
Figure 3.22 First mode shape of the final configuration (deformations in mm). Perfect
restraints.....................................................................................................................54
Figure 3.23 Mode shapes of the final configuration (deformations in mm), equivalent
springs, middle-stroke position .............................................................................. 54
springs, end-stroke position.................................................................................... 55
Figure 3.25 First mode shape: table loaded with the maximum payload at 1 m and 7 m.. 56
Figure 3.26 Possible effective mass of a specimen for different peak accelerations .......... 58
Figure 3.27 OTM at the table base for different peak accelerations ..................................... 58
Figure 3.28 Shaking table position in the middle of the fixed guides ................................... 60
Figure 3.29 Shaking table position at the end of the fixed guides ......................................... 60
Figure 3.30 Deformed shape: OTM effect due to short pier, middle stroke position ....... 63
Figure 3.31 Short pier. OTM effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m,
-1.5 m and -1.1 m), middle stroke position .......................................................... 63
Figure 3.32 Deformed shape: OTM effect due to short pier, end stroke position............. 64
-1.5 m and -1.1 m), end stroke position................................................................ 64
Figure 3.34 Deformed shape: OTM effect due to tall pier, middle stroke position ........... 66
Figure 3.35 Tall pier. OTM effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m, 1.5 m and -1.1 m), middle stroke position ........................................................... 66
Figure 3.36 Deformed shape: OTM effect due to tall pier, end stroke position................. 67
Figure 3.37 Tall pier. OTM effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m, 1.5 m and -1.1 m), end stroke position ................................................................. 67
-1.5 m and -1.1 m). Middle (a) and end (b) stroke positions. Maximum
longitudinal force applied........................................................................................ 69
Figure 3.39 Tall pier. OTM effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m, 1.5 m and -1.1 m). Middle (a) and end (b) stroke positions. Maximum
longitudinal force applied........................................................................................ 70
Figure 3.40 Deformed shape due to maximum design load application, middle stroke
position ...................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 3.41 Design load effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m, -1.5
m and -1.1 m), middle stroke position.................................................................. 72
Figure 3.42 Von Mises stresses due to maximum design load application, middle
stroke position .......................................................................................................... 73
Figure 3.43 Deformed shape due to maximum design load application, end stroke
position ...................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 3.44 Design load effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m, -1.5
m and -1.1 m), end stroke position ....................................................................... 74
Figure 3.45 Von Mises stresses due to maximum design load application, end stroke
position ...................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 4.1 Final configuration of the PsD test apparatus: view in plan................................ 77
Figure 4.2 Pier cross section: three different longitudinal reinforcement percentages
(scaled 1:2) ................................................................................................................. 79
Figure 4.3 Final PsD structural configuration: 3D view ......................................................... 81
List of Figures
xi
Figure 4.4 Stress field for the shorter wall (9.6 m) of the final PsD configuration.............81
Figure 4.5 Stress field for the longer wall (14.4 m) of the final PsD configuration............82
Figure 4.6 Mechanical stressing anchorage types M [Alga, 2004]......................................83
Figure 4.7 Stressing anchorage type M [Alga, 2004] ............................................................85
Figure 4.8 Cross-section of the precast block with the perforations for the 31T15
tendons.......................................................................................................................86
Figure 4.9 Stress trend: each wall subjected to its maximum forces .....................................88
Figure 4.10 Strong floor: directions of the hollow precast blocks.........................................90
Figure 4.11 Full view of the PsD apparatus after the design of cable location ...................90
Figure 4.12 Detailed view of the 14.4 m long wall: vertical and transversal cable
locations .....................................................................................................................91
Figure 4.13 Detailed view of 9.6 m long wall: vertical and transversal cable locations......91
Figure 4.14 Detailed view of the strong floor: horizontal cable locations ...........................92
Figure 4.15 Block type A ..............................................................................................................92
Figure 4.16 Block Type D ............................................................................................................92
Figure 4.17 Block Type E.............................................................................................................93
Figure 4.18 Block Type G ............................................................................................................93
Figure 4.19 Schematically in plan view of the foundation system for the PsD
apparatus....................................................................................................................94
Figure 4.20 Strong floor and foundation system: final configuration (SAP [Computer
and Structures, Inc., 1995]) .....................................................................................95
Figure 4.21 View of the foundation system beneath the strong floor (finite element
mesh with SAP [Computer and Structures, Inc., 1995]) ....................................96
Figure 4.22 Initially investigated configuration of the PsD test apparatus: plan view........97
Figure 4.23 Initially investigated PsD structural configuration: 3D view.............................98
Figure 4.24 Approximate verification of the FE model results .............................................98
Figure 4.25 Stress field for the shorter wall (9.6 m) of the 1st PsD configuration ..............99
Figure 4.26 Stress field for the longer wall (12 m) of the 1st PsD configuration.................99
Figure 5.1 Performance curves for the hydraulic actuator....................................................105
Figure 5.2 Hydraulic actuator assembly by MTS System Corporation [2004] ...................106
Figure 5.3 Cylinder assembly by MTS System Corporation [2004].....................................107
Figure 5.4 Actuator interfaces by Tecno-cut [2004]...............................................................109
Figure 5.5 Square steel plate at the interface reaction mass/actuator .................................109
Figure 5.6 Actuator interfaces by MTS System Corporation [2004] ...................................110
Figure 5.7 Piping system for the EUCENTRE laboratory [Hydros s.r.l., 2004]...............113
Figure 6.1 Blow/foot values from the standard penetration tests.......................................117
Figure 6.2 Shear wave velocity profile from the SPT tests ...................................................118
Figure 6.3 Profiles of P and S wave velocities (left). Poissons ratio profile with depth
(right) ........................................................................................................................119
Figure 6.4 Experimental Vs profile with the standard deviation values with depth. On
the right hand side, the Vs precautionary design profile for static loading
conditions is shown................................................................................................120
xii
Figure 6.5 Vertical stress due to load acting on a circular area: Foster and Ahlvins
solution [Lancellotta, 1987]. Circled numbers refer to the ratio r/R.............121
Figure 6.6 Influence of mean effective confining pressure on modulus reduction
curves for non-plastic soils [Kramer, 1996] ......................................................122
Figure 6.7 Vertical settlement [m] for dead load. Drained soil condition ..........................128
Figure 6.8 Vertical settlement [m] for dead load. Undrained soil condition......................128
Figure 6.9 Vertical settlement [m] for dead load and OTM due to actuator dynamic
force. Drained soil condition................................................................................129
force. Undrained soil condition ...........................................................................129
Figure 6.11 Vertical settlement [m] of 80 cm thick foundation for dead load of
configuration in Figure 3.20. Drained soil condition .......................................130
configuration in Figure 6.19 (on left). Drained soil condition........................130
Figure 6.13 Drained conditions: infinitely flexible foundation. Deformation in [m] .......133
Figure 6.14 Undrained conditions: infinitely flexible foundation. Deformation in [m]...133
Figure 6.15 Drained (on the right) and undrained (on the left) conditions: 40 cm
foundation. Deformation in [m] ..........................................................................134
Figure 6.16 Drained conditions: 240 cm foundation (only to take into account the
stiffness of the strong floor). Deformation in [m]............................................134
Figure 6.17 Undrained conditions: 240 cm foundation (to account for strong floor
stiffness). Deformation in [m]..............................................................................135
Figure 6.18 Lumped model of the reaction mass/foundation for the EUCENTRE
dynamic facility .......................................................................................................137
Figure 6.19 Competing configurations studied for the reaction mass/foundation
design of the EUCENTRE shaking table ..........................................................139
Figure 6.20 Dynamic impedance functions (DYNA4 [Novak et al., 1993]).......................144
Figure 6.21 Dynamic impedance functions (DYNA4 [Novak et al., 1993]).......................144
Figure 6.22 Harmonic loads: excitation functions of the 3.0 m thick rigid foundation...145
Figure 6.23 Response functions related to the horizontal DOF (harmonic excitations)
of the 3.0 m thick rigid foundation .....................................................................145
Figure 6.24 Response functions related to the rotational DOF (harmonic excitations)
of the 3.0 m thick rigid foundation .....................................................................145
Figure 6.25 Foundation reactions due to harmonic excitations of the 3.0 m thick rigid
foundation ...............................................................................................................146
Figure 6.26 Excitation action time-histories (at the centre of gravity of the reaction
mass): Coalinga Earthquake, scaled 1:2 bridge pier S250 ................................147
Figure 6.27 Response functions related to the translational DOF (Coalinga
earthquake) ..............................................................................................................148
Figure 6.28 Response functions related to the rotational DOF (Coalinga earthquake)...148
Figure 6.29 Foundation reactions due to Coalinga earthquake............................................149
List of Figures
xiii
Figure 6.30 Chart for estimation of volumetric strain in saturated sands from cyclic
stress ratio and standard penetration resistance. (After Tokimatsu and
Seed, [1987]) [Kramer, 1996] ................................................................................149
Figure 6.31 SPT clean-sand base curve for Magnitude 7.5. Earthquakes with data from
liquefaction case histories (modified from Seed et al. [1985])..........................150
Figure A.1 East view of the EUCENTRE building ..............................................................163
Figure A.2 North view of the EUCENTRE building ...........................................................163
Figure A.3 Plan view of the EUCENTRE Laboratory: ground floor level .......................164
Figure A.4 Sections of the EUCENTRE laboratory .............................................................165
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Major existing dynamic testing facilities worldwide [adapted from
Fabbrocino and Cosenza, 2004]............................................................................... 7
Table 2.2 Performance characteristics of the shaking tables reviewed above......................14
Table 2.3 Major existing pseudo-dynamic testing facilities worldwide [adapted from
Taucer and Franchioni, 2005].................................................................................15
Table 2.4 Performance characteristics of the described PsD apparatus...............................19
Table 2.5 Performance characteristics of the EUCENTRE shaking table ..........................22
Table 2.6 Performance characteristics of the EUCENTRE PsD apparatus .......................23
Table 3.1 Number and dimension of steel diaphragms of the EUCENTRE shaking
table ............................................................................................................................35
Table 3.2 Hydrostatic bearings: number, location and area....................................................41
Table 3.3 Hydrostatic stiffness for 0.05 mm thick viscous fluid............................................42
Table 3.4 Hydrostatic stiffness for 0.07 mm thick viscous fluid............................................43
Table 3.5 Reinforcement bars in the reaction mass volume...................................................50
Table 3.6 Modal analysis results: oil stiffnesses as restraint, middle-stroke position..........55
Table 3.7 Modal analysis results: oil stiffnesses as restraint, end-stroke position ...............56
Table 3.8 60 tonnes payload at 1m from the top plate............................................................56
Table 3.9 60 tonnes payload at 7 m from the top plate...........................................................57
Table 3.10 Base shear and bending moments for bridge piers (scaled 1:2)..........................60
Table 3.11 Base shear and bending moments for bridge piers (scaled 1:3)..........................61
Table 3.12 Vertical deformations due to scaled 1:2 pier OTM ..............................................62
Table 3.13 Short pier OTM: bearing deformations, middle stroke position .......................62
Table 3.14 Short pier OTM: bearing deformations, end stroke position .............................64
Table 3.15 Tall pier OTM: bearing deformations, middle stroke position ..........................65
Table 3.16 Tall pier OTM: bearing deformations, end stroke position ................................65
Table 3.17 Short pier OTM: bearing deformations, middle stroke position.
Longitudinal force applied ......................................................................................68
Table 3.18 Short pier OTM: bearing deformations, end stroke position. Longitudinal
force applied..............................................................................................................68
Table 3.19 Tall pier OTM: bearing deformations, middle stroke position. Longitudinal
force applied..............................................................................................................69
Table 3.20 Tall pier OTM: bearing deformations, end stroke position. Longitudinal
force applied..............................................................................................................70
Table 3.21 Vertical deformations due to scaled 1:2 pier OTM and longitudinal force......71
Table 3.22 Vertical deformations due to design loads.............................................................71
Table 3.23 Design loads: bearing deformations, middle stroke position..............................72
Table 3.24 Design loads: bearing deformations, end stroke position ...................................73
Table 4.1 Material properties of the piers..................................................................................78
Table 4.2 Yielding and ultimate forces and moments from moment curvature analyses
(N = -2500 kN).........................................................................................................79
xvi
Table 4.3 Yielding and ultimate forces and moments from moment curvature analyses
(N=-7500 kN)........................................................................................................... 80
Table 4.4 Performance checks of the final PsD configuration .............................................. 80
Table 4.5 Mechanical characteristics of the most commonly used strands [Alga, 2004] ... 83
Table 4.6 Maximum applicable forces to the reaction walls: concentrated or
distributed for the wall length ................................................................................ 87
Table 4.7 Performance checks of the initially investigated PsD configuration ................... 98
Table 5.1 Dependency of oil column resonance on oil temperature ..................................104
Table 5.2 Quasi-static and fatigue-rated structural actuator characteristics .......................111
Table 5.3 High-performance actuator characteristics ............................................................112
Table 6.1 Vs with NSPT values: from BH01 on the left and BH02 on the right ................117
Table 6.2 Soil properties.............................................................................................................120
Table 6.3 Clay layer locations from boreholes and cross-hole test .....................................123
Table 6.4 Significant depth values as a function of the width B of the foundation
[Lancellotta, 1987] ..................................................................................................124
Table 6.5 Shaking table foundation: geometry and loads......................................................126
Table 6.6 Drained soil condition: soil properties, for shaking table foundation...............126
Table 6.7 Undrained soil condition: soil properties, for shaking table foundation ..........127
Table 6.8 PsD foundation: geometry and loads .....................................................................132
Table 6.9 Drained soil condition: soil properties, for the PsD foundation .......................132
Table 6.10 Undrained soil condition: soil properties, for the PsD foundation.................132
Table 6.11 Maximum and minimum values of the vertical settlement for different
analysed cases..........................................................................................................135
Table 6.12 Response functions for harmonic loads ( = 0.0%) for the configuration in
Figure 6.19 (on left)................................................................................................141
Table 6.13 Response functions for harmonic loads ( = 3.0% due to airbags) for the
configuration in Figure 6.19 (on left) ..................................................................141
Table 6.14 Response functions for harmonic loads for the configuration in Figure 6.19
(on right) ( = 0%) .................................................................................................143
Table 6.15 Response functions for harmonic loads for 3.0 m thick rigid foundation (
= 0%) (Figure 6.19, on right) ...............................................................................143
Table 6.16 Comparison: maximum acceleration, velocity and displacement for 3.0 m
rigid block foundation of the EUCENTRE shaking table (Figure 6.19)......147
Table 6.17 (N1)60 cs and CSR values for the calculation of ..................................................151
Table 6.18 Vertical settlement of the saturated sands using (N1)60 cs from BH01...........152
Table 6.19 Vertical settlement of the saturated sands using (N1)60 cs from BH02...........152
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
Structural behaviour under dynamic loads is vital in many branches of civil, mechanical
and aerospace engineering. Examples include earthquake loading of buildings, vibration
induced by vehicles on non-uniform road surfaces and launching loads in spacecraft. All
these applications share the common characteristics that they are difficult to model
analytically and that detailed monitoring of prototype structures in the field is
uneconomic and in many cases impossible. Laboratory testing therefore has a crucial role
to play in furthering our understanding of dynamic loads and mitigating their undesirable
effects. The present work is focused on earthquake engineering.
The key issue in any laboratory test is the accuracy with which the conditions in the field
can be reproduced. If the laboratory conditions are not representative, then the test
results will at best be of limited applicability, and may be dangerously misleading. An
accurate dynamic test requires very high performance of three main elements: the
hardware used to apply the loads (usually servo-hydraulic actuators); the control system
that monitors and corrects the loads; and (in the case of hybrid methods such as pseudodynamic testing) the numerical dynamic analysis that runs in parallel with the physical
test.
In civil engineering, scaling and rate of loading effects are particularly problematic.
Extrapolating from small-scale model results to prototype behaviour is fraught with
difficulties, particularly when the structural response is nonlinear. However, loading fullscale structures at the correct rate requires enormous resources and extremely highperformance hardware. Some compromise is therefore usually necessary.
In the field of earthquake engineering, the most widely used experimental methods are
the following [Carvalho, 1998]:
Static cyclic testing is widely used for determining the performance of materials and
elements under the repeated load reversals that occur during earthquakes, though it
does not model dynamic behaviour.
Shaking tables are widely used to impose prescribed base motions on reduced-scale
models, though a few tables exist which have the capacity to apply seismic base
motions to full-scale structures, as described later. Apart from the scaling problems
mentioned above, there are difficulties in controlling such tests. Traditional control
algorithms require a priori knowledge of the properties of the system being controlled.
However, these are generally not known to a high degree of accuracy and may change
during the test as the specimen suffers damage.
The main current alternative to shaking table testing is pseudo-dynamic (PsD) testing
in which a large-scale test specimen is loaded over an expanded time-scale with the
dynamic effects accounted for computationally. This is acceptable if the dynamic and
rate-dependent effects can be calculated reliably but, uncertainty over these aspects of
behaviour is very often the motivation for performing the test in the first place.
More recently, a variety of real-time methods have been developed. Like pseudodynamic testing, these use a combination of physical testing and numerical modelling,
but the experimental part of the process is performed at the correct rate so that the test
specimen can respond dynamically [Nakashima et al., 1990].
Arrays of explosive charges are occasionally used to simulate earthquake ground
motions at large scale [Kitada et al., 2000].
Dynamic centrifuge testing is used to model geotechnical and soil-structure interaction
problems.
Among such methods, static cyclic testing does not involve dynamics, array of explosive
charges is a rather infrequently used approach, and dynamic centrifuge testing is used in
the testing of soils.
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND OUTLINE
This manuscript focuses on the design of a new testing facility to be constructed at the
European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE)
in Pavia (Italy). The design of both shaking table and pseudo-dynamic testing facilities is
discussed. The testing element capabilities are given, focusing on the servo-hydraulic
actuator performances for both dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing. The problem of
soil-structure interaction has been studied in terms of the settlements due to the static
loads for both the shaking table and the PsD apparatus. The dynamic resultant motion
transmitted to the soil from the shaking table is taken into account. The seismic isolation
of the shaking table, and consequently of the overall structure, is studied. This publication
is organized as follows.
Chapter two introduces the testing facility under construction at the EUCENTRE. In
particular, an overview of the dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing is given. Some
examples of existing shaking tables and pseudo-dynamic apparatus are given. The testing
facility performance targets are discussed in comparison with the local needs and
constraints.
Chapter three describes the design of the EUCENTRE shaking table, with particular
attention to the structural and mechanical arrangements of the platform, the stiffness
Chapter 1: Introduction
evaluation of the system restraining the platform motion, the design of the reaction mass
and the isolation system.
Chapter four describes the design of the EUCENTRE pseudo-dynamic testing facility.
The structural arrangement of the PsD apparatus is described and the evaluation of its
stiffness is presented. The design of the post-tensioning system for the reaction walls and
the strong floor is described. The foundation system of the facility is designed to take into
account the anchorage spaces of the cables.
Chapter five is a brief description of the testing elements such as the servo-hydraulic
actuators. The performance characteristics of the powerful actuator of the shaking table
are listed together with the actuators required for the PsD apparatus. The piping system
for both facilities is briefly described.
Chapter six is devoted to the study of the soil-structure interaction: both soil-shaking
table and soil-PsD apparatus interaction. The soil properties are described. The
evaluation of the vertical settlements due to static loads is performed under the reaction
mass of the shaking table and the PsD apparatus, respectively. From a dynamic point of
view, the complex interaction due the tables resultant motion transmitted to the
underlying soil is developed with reference to the work of Pavese et al. [2005].
Chapter seven provides a succinct closure to this manuscript.
CHAPTER 2: THE NEW EUCENTRE FACILITY

In this chapter, the rationale behind the construction of the new testing facility at the
EUCENTRE is presented. This requires, however, that a brief overview of existing
facilities for both shaking table and PsD testing is firstly given. Therefore, a description
of the technical aspects of such testing systems is found in what follows.
2.1 SHAKING TABLE TESTING
Although attempts at testing structures under earthquake loading have been recorded as
early as at the turn of the last century [Rogers, 1908], it was not until the late 1960s and
the early 1970s that effective shaking table testing of structural models started being
carried out [Donea and Jones, 1991; Pinho, 2000]. This came as a result of the advances
in electro-hydraulic servo equipment, as well as improvements in computer hardware and
instrumentation for control and acquisition of data [Aristizabal-Ochoa and Clark, 1980].
Such work was mainly initiated in the US in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, with the
set-up of dynamic testing facilities at the University of Illinois Urbana [Sozen et al., 1969;
Otani and Sozen, 1972]. Since then, shaking table testing has been widely adopted in
earthquake engineering research centres worldwide, owing to the fact that it is the only
currently available means of truly reproducing the dynamic effects that earthquakes
impose on structures. In fact, notwithstanding the practicality and effectiveness of
pseudo-dynamic testing, the important effects introduced by strain-rate in the structural
response of structures continue to raise doubts regarding the suitability of static or quasistatic methods for studying the dynamic behaviour of structures under earthquake
loading [Paulson and Abrams, 1990].
On the other hand, however, hydraulic power limitations in the vast majority of currently
available shaking tables impose the requirement for the use of reduced scale specimens.
This, in turn, introduces difficulties and uncertainties in the interpretation of the
experimental results, since it has yet to be established what is the minimum scale or
minimum portion of a building system that can be tested to reflect strength and
deformation properties of actual buildings [Abrams, 1996]. Recent initiatives seem to
propose an alternative way.
Thus, the need for building large and powerful dynamic facilities capable of testing up to
failure full-scale models has become clear. Consequently, considerable effort and funding
have been allocated over the past 40 years in the construction of continuously larger and
more powerful shaking table facilities around the world.
Despite several advantages, testing of full-scale structures under dynamic loading, such as
those reported by Minowa et al. [1996], Ogawa et al. [2001], Van Den Einde et al. [2004], is
still far from being a common undertaking, mainly due to the very high cost associated.
However, if applied to isolated structural members (or sub-assemblies), for which largescale models can more easily be employed, such testing is the most suitable to accurately
reproduce the effects earthquake shaking has on these elements.
2.1.1 Some existing facilities
Several shaking tables throughout Europe are being used to investigate the dynamic
effects of earthquakes on structures. With regards to the initiatives outside Europe,
considerable funding and effort have also been allotted over the past 40 years in the
construction of continuously larger and powerful shaking table facilities. In particular, in
Japan and in USA, the drive for building large and more powerful dynamic facilities,
capable of testing up to failure full-scale models, has become clear. A large number of
dynamic testing facilities are located in Japan and they represent, in conjunction with
similar equipment installed in Asia, about 60% of the available facilities.
Table 2.1 provides an interesting overview of academic and industrial facilities in the field
of seismic experimental design and assessment of structures. If the shaking table
properties are considered, it is worth noting that 1 and 2 degrees of freedom (DOF) are
less common than 3 and 6 DOFs, even if torsional input generally is not used and the
corresponding DOFs are employed to ensure the equilibrium of the table and avoid
vertical and rotational motions. In terms of specimen masses, one may observe (Table
2.1) that a payload of about 20-30 tonnes is commonly used even if a more recent trend
especially in Japan, has led to specimen masses up to 1200 tonnes.
In what follows, a brief panorama of the most powerful dynamic testing facilities in Italy,
Europe, USA and Japan is given. It is noted that this section is not intended to serve as a
fully comprehensive overview of dynamic experimental facilities worldwide but rather
aims at providing an insight to the performance characteristics of existing shaking tables
(or under construction), so as to somehow set the context within which the
subsequentely described new earthquake engineering testing facility in Pavia (i.e.
EUCENTRE) finds its rationale and role. Readers who are instead interested in a more
complete worldwide listing of this type of laboratories, may refer to the recently
published report by Taucer and Franchioni [2005].
a) In Italy: CESI-ISMES MASTER shaking table
The MASTER (MultiAxis Shaking Table for Earthquake Reproduction) shaking table at
CESI-ISMES (Figure 2.1 and Table 2.2) was commissioned in 1984. The ISMES
MASTER shaking table has six degrees of freedom control (i.e. two horizontal and one
Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Table 2.1 Major existing dynamic testing facilities worldwide

[adapted from Fabbrocino and Cosenza, 2004]
Payload
Area
Institution
[tonnes]
[m2]
NIED - Table 1 (Japan)
1200.00 15.020.0
Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (Japan)
907.18
15.015.0
NIED - Table 2 (Japan)
500.00
15.014.5
University of California San Diego (USA)
400.00
12.07.6
Public Works Research Institute (Japan)
272.15
8.08.0
Aichi Institute of Technology (Japan)
136.10
11.06.0
CEA (France)
90.72
6.06.0
Sanryo Heavy Industies Corporation (Japan)
90.70
6.06.0
Hazama Corp. Ltd. (Japan)
80.00
6.04.0
Kumagai-Gumi Corp. Ltd (Japan)
63.50
5.05.0
University at Buffalo (USA)
50.00
3.63.6
Kajima Corp. Ltd. (Japan)
45.50
5.05.0
National Research Institute of Agriculture Eng. (Japan)
45.40
6.04.0
University of California at Berkeley (USA)
45.36
6.16.1
Hydroproject Research Institute (Russia)
45.36
6.06.0
University of Nevada at Reno, 2 tables (USA)
45.36
4.34.5
U.S. Army Civil Engineering Research Lab (USA)
45.36
3.63.6
Obayashi-Gumi Corporation (Japan)
45.35
5.05.0
Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil (Portugal)
40.00
5.64.6
University of St. Cyril and Methodius (Macedonia)
36.28
5.05.0
University at San Diego, 2 tables (USA)
32.66
3.04.9
CESI-ISMES (Italy)
30.00
4.04.0
Korea Institute of Machinery and Metals (Korea)
27.22
4.04.0
National Center for Res. in Earthquake Eng. (Taiwan)
27.21
5.05.0
Wyle Laboratories (USA)
27.00
6.16.1
Fujita Corporation (Japan)
25.00
4.04.0
KFA Juelich (Germany)
22.70
5.05.0
Shimizu Corporation (Japan)
20.00
4.04.0
Tobishima Corp. Ltd (Japan)
20.00
4.04.0
Taisei Corp. Ltd (Japan)
20.00
4.04.0
Hitachi Engineering Corp. (Japan)
20.00
4.04.0
Building Research Institute (Japan)
18.13
3.04.0
Kyoto University (Japan)
13.60
5.03.0
Tonji University (China)
13.60
4.04.0
National Technical University (Athens, Greece)
10.00
4.04.0
ENEA (Italy)
10.00
4.04.0
Ansaldo Meccanica Nucleare (Italy)
6.30
3.53.5
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (USA)
4.50
3.73.7
DOF
3
2
1
1
6
1
3
3
3
6
5
6
3
6
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
6
6
6
2
1
3
3
3
2
1
3
6
2
6
6
3
1
vertical plus the roll, pitch and yaw motions). The steel platform measures 4 m by 4 m
and weighs 11 tonnes. It can carry a maximum payload of 30 tonnes. The peak
acceleration reaches 3g with zero payload. In terms of velocity and displacement, the
maximum values are 0.55 m/s and 100 mm, respectively. The platform is driven by
four 150 kN vertical servo-hydraulic actuators and four 250 kN horizontal servohydraulic actuators at the corners of the table. The operating frequency limit is 120 Hz
[ECOEST, 1997].
Figure 2.1 Schematic arrangement of the Master shaking table [ECOEST, 1997]
b) In Italy: University of Naples Federico II AMRA shaking tables

The AMRA project of the shaking table seismic simulation laboratory is based on a
multiple biaxial table system analogous to that of the University of RenoNevada, US. In
terms of capabilities (Table 2.2), the maximum payload is 20 tonnes; the maximum
acceleration is 1g (with zero payload), the maximum velocity 1.0 m/s and the stroke
250 mm. The two shaking tables are 3 m by 3 m wide. The two tables can be set to
produce a single biaxial table shaking in the two horizontal directions or to reproduce
asynchronous seismic inputs through separate control of each table. In other words, they
can be constrained to act together as a single large table or can be operated individually
with independent motions [Fabbrocino and Cosenza, 2004].
c) In Italy: ENEA Casaccia shaking tables
In the earthquake-engineering laboratory of the ENEA-Casaccia, Rome, there are two
shaking tables (Table 2.2). The first system is characterized by a platform with an overall
size of 4 m by 4 m, a maximum payload of 10 tonnes, peak acceleration of 3g (with zero
payload), peak velocity of 0.5 m/s and a stroke of 250 mm. The second shaking table is
2 m by 2 m wide and it has one tonne as maximum payload, 5g as peak acceleration for a
bare table, 1.0 m/s as peak velocity and 300 mm stroke. Both systems have been
designed as six degrees of freedom shaking tables. The testing frequency range is 0-50 Hz
for the first system, and 0-100 Hz for the second one.
d) In Europe: Centre for Studies and Equipment in Earthquake Engineering (Portugal) 3D
LNEC shaking table
The 3D shaking table at LNEC is located at the Centre for Studies and Equipment in
Earthquake Engineering (Figure 2.2 and Table 2.2). It was commissioned in 1995 and is
housed in a purpose-built laboratory. This shaking table has three degrees of freedom
control: three orthogonal translational DOFs (i.e. two horizontal and the vertical).
Figure 2.2 Arrangement of the three-axis table at LNEC [ECOEST, 1997]
10
Contrary to the two previous cases, the three rotational degrees of freedom (i.e. roll, pitch
and yaw) are constrained by a set of torque tube systems, one for each degree of freedom.
Each of these torque systems is composed of a tube, torsionally very stiff which can
rotate around its longitudinal axis and is supported at both ends by bearings. The steel
platform measures 5.6 m by 4.6 m and weighs 40 tonnes. It can carry a maximum payload
of 40 tonnes. In terms of capabilities, the system reaches a peak acceleration of 1.8g (with
zero payload), peak velocity of 0.2 m/s and a stroke of 175 mm. The platform is driven
by one 1000 kN longitudinal, two 300 kN lateral and one 300 kN vertical servo-hydraulic
actuator situated on the centrelines of the table. The testing frequency limit is 20 Hz
[ECOEST, 1997].
e) In Europe: University of Athens (Greece) NTUA shaking table
The shaking table at NTUA (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2) was commissioned in 1985 after a
4-year construction period and is housed in the purpose-built laboratory for Earthquake
Engineering (LEE). The table has six degrees of freedom offering control of the three
orthogonal translational degrees of freedom (i.e. two horizontal and the vertical) and the
associated rotational degrees of freedom (i.e. roll, pitch and yaw). The steel platform
measures 4 m by 4 m and weighs 10 tonnes. It can carry a maximum payload of 10
tonnes. The maximum acceleration is 2g with zero payload. The peak velocity reaches
1m/s and the stroke 100 mm. Eight 160 kN servo-hydraulic actuators drive the
platform. Four act horizontally and four vertically at the corners of the table. The servohydraulic, analogue and digital control systems were manufactured by MTS Inc.
[ECOEST, 1997]. The operating frequency limit is 25 Hz.
Figure 2.3 Arrangement of the six-axes table in Athens [ECOEST, 1997]
11
f) In Europe: University of Bristol (UK) EPRSC shaking table

The shaking table at Bristol University (Figure 2.4 and Table 2.2) is housed at the
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre. It was founded originally in 1985 by the UK
Science and Engineering Research Council and the University of Bristol. Subsequently,
the Research Council was renamed, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC) and the shaking table is now officially known as the EPSRC
Earthquake Simulator. The whole system was designed and built in-house, in
collaboration with the Silveridge Technology Ltd., a UK based company. The Bristol
shaking table features six degrees of freedom, giving control over the three orthogonal
translational degrees of freedom and the associated rotational degrees of freedom. The
cast aluminium platform, measures 3 m by 3 m in plan, and weighs 3 tonnes. The
platform can carry a maximum payload of 15 tonnes. The facility is characterized by a
peak acceleration of 4.5g with zero payload. The maximum velocity reached is 0.7 m/s
and the stroke 150 mm. The shaking table is driven by eight 50 kN servo-hydraulic
actuators. Four act horizontally and are arranged around the perimeter of the platform. A
further four act vertically at the corners of the platform. The operating frequency limit is
100 Hz [ECOEST, 1997].
Figure 2.4 Arrangement of the six-axis table in Bristol [ECOEST, 1997]
12
g) In USA: University of California San Diego LHP outdoor shaking table

The UCSD Large High Performance (LHP) Outdoor Shaking Table (Figure 2.5 and
Table 2.2) is being developed at the Field Station at Camp Elliott, a site located 15 km
away from the main UCSD campus [Van Den Einde et al., 2004]. The shaking table is
acting in combination with equipment and facilities separately funded by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which include a large laminar soil shear box
and two refillable soil pits. The Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)
LHP Outdoor Shaking Table is a 7.6 m wide by 12.2 m long, single DOF system with the
capability of being upgraded to 6 DOFs. With respect to the maximum capabilities of the
system, the specimen weight reaches 400 tonnes even if the vertical payload capacity is
2000 tonnes. The specifications for the first phase of the facility are a peak acceleration of
4.7g for a bare table, a peak horizontal velocity of 1.8 m/s, a stroke of 750 mm. The
testing frequency range is 0-20 Hz. Although this table is not the largest of its kind in
terms of size in the world, the velocity, frequency range, and stroke capabilities make it
the largest table outside Japan and the world's first outdoor shaking table. The intention
of NEES is to add a significant new dimension and capabilities to existing United States
testing facilities with no overhead space and lifting constraints. The outdoor table may
also contribute in overcoming current problems with damage incurred during
transportation of specimens [Van Den Einde et al., 2004].
Figure 2.5 The outdoor shaking table at the University of California, San Diego [Van Den
Einde et al., 2004]
h) In Japan: National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention EDEFENCE shaking table
The worlds largest shaking table (Figure 2.6 and Table 2.2) is in Japan, in Miki City. The
intention is to conduct full-scale testing in various fields such as civil engineering
structures, soil structure and formation, industrial plant components, and so on. The table
13
size is 20 m by 15 m. The payload reaches 1200 tonnes. The maximum acceleration is

1.7g with zero payload, the table velocity has a peak of 2.0 m/s, and the maximum
displacement is 1000 mm. At Miky-city several buildings, such as the laboratory centre,
measurement and control building, hydraulic oil unit building, preparation building and
so on have been constructed. The three dimensional shaking table is installed in the
laboratory building. High-capacity servo-hydraulic equipment is required in order to drive
the large mass of the table and test specimen at the required rate. The very large EDEFENCE table required the development of new bearing and pressure seal systems as
well as servovalves able to provide flows of 15000 l/min [Ogawa et al., 2000]. Three
servovalves are provided for each horizontal actuator and one valve for each vertical
actuator. This means a total flow rate of 45000 l/min is needed for one horizontal
actuator in order to realize a table velocity of 2.0 m/s.
Figure 2.6 An outline of the shaking table system at Miki City [Ogawa et al., 2001]
2.1.2 Summary of main features of existing shaking tables

The main characteristics of the shaking tables described in the previous sections are
summarized in Table 2.2. In particular, the comparison is made in terms of payload, peak
acceleration for a bare table condition, peak velocity and stroke. In the same table, the
EUCENTRE shaking table is included with its design capabilities. As one may observe,
the main strengths of the EUCENTRE shaking table within the Italian and European
panorama are payload and the peak velocity. The design requirements of the
EUCENTRE dynamic testing facility are fully described in section 2.3.2.
14
Table 2.2 Performance characteristics of the shaking tables reviewed above

Peak
Peak
Stroke
Payload
Institution
acc.
vel.
[tonnes]
[g] *
[m/s]
[mm]
NIED (Japan)
1200.00
1.7
2.00
1000
University of California San Diego (USA)
400.00
4.7
1.80
750
Centre for Studies & Equipment Earth. Eng. (Portugal)
40.00
1.8
0.20
175
CESI-ISMES (Italy)
30.00
3.0
0.55
100
University of Naples Federico II (Italy)
20.00
1.0
1.00
250
University of Bristol (UK)
15.00
4.5
0.70
150
ENEA (Italy)
10.00
3.0
1.00
250
University of Athens (Greece)
10.00
2.0
1.00
100
EUCENTRE (Italy)
60.00
5.0
1.50
500
* For a bare table condition
2.2 PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TESTING

The pseudo-dynamic (PsD) test method, also known as online testing, was developed
under the US-Japan Cooperative Earthquake Programme in the 1980s [Mahin and Shing,
1985; Takanashi and Nakashima, 1987]. PsD testing is a hybrid method in which the
structural displacements due to the earthquake are calculated computationally using a
stepwise integration procedure and applied quasi-statically to the test specimen. The
resulting resistance forces are measured and fed back to the computational model as part
of the input for the next calculation step. Tests normally run on an expanded time-scale
of the order of 100 times the actual time-scale [Mahin et al., 1989]. This is advantageous in
that it simplifies the equipment needed and it allows for inspection of the test structure
between load steps. A major potential drawback, however, is that any time-dependent
behaviour in the test specimen is not included [e.g. Donea and Jones, 1991; Pinho and
Elnashai, 2000].
Since the PsD method allows realistic dynamic testing without the need for dynamically
rated actuators or very high oil flow rates, it makes full-scale testing feasible, so long as
sufficiently large strong floor and reaction wall are available. An example of such a facility
is the ELSA laboratory at the European Commissions Joint Research Centre (JRC) at
Ispra, which includes a 16 m high reaction wall capable of resisting a base shear of 20
MN and a bending moment of 200 MNm [Donea et al., 1996]. Most PsD testing to date
has been unidirectional. However, recent work has demonstrated the feasibility of
performing multidimensional tests [Thewalt and Mahin, 1995; Molina et al., 1999].
Table 2.3 below, extracted from the detailed report by Taucer and Franchioni [2005],
provides an overview of existing PsD experimental facilities worldwide. In addition,
selected examples of existing PsD experimental facilities are described with relative detail
in subsequent sections.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
15
Table 2.3 Major existing pseudo-dynamic testing facilities worldwide

[adapted from Taucer and Franchioni, 2005]
Reaction Strong
Wall
Floor
Institution
Type
Height
Area
[m]
[m2]
L-shaped Building Research Institute (Japan)
25.00
NA
two sides
Hazama Technical Research Institute, Hazama Corp.
18.00
423
Ltd. (Japan)
European Laboratory for Structural Assessment JRC
I-sahped 16.00
281
Ispra (Italy)
two sides
ATLSS and Fritz Laboratories, Lehigh University
15.20
381
L-shaped
(USA)
Structural Systems Laboratory, University of California
15.00
946
at San Diego (USA)
Bristol Laboratory for Advance Dynamic Engineering
15.00
(UK)
Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National
14.00
345
Institute of Standards and Technology (USA)
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, UC Berkeley
Reconfigura
13.30
590
Pacific (USA)
ble
Cornell University (USA)
12.00
300
University of Minnesota Twin Cities (USA)
12.00
297
L-shaped
Faculty of Science and Engineering, Nihon University
12.00
285
at Tokyo (Japan)
Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal (Canada)
10.00
500
L-shaped
Technical Research Institute, Shimizu Corporation Ltd.
10.00
NA
(Japan)
Nabor Carrillo y R J Marsal del Instituto de Ingenieria,
10.00
NA
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (Mexico)
Structural Engineering and Materials Laboratory,
9.80
764
Georgia Tech (USA)
Large Scale Structures Laboratory, University of
9.50
765
Nevada at Reno (USA)
L-shaped Materials and Structural Testing University of Trento
9.50
407
one side
(Italy)
Constructed Facilities Laboratory, North Carolina
7.60
418
State University (USA)
Full-Scale Structure Laboratory, Chulalongkom
7.00
300
University (Thailand)
Structures Test Hall, University of California, Irvine
6.70
325
(USA)
Materials and Structural Testing University of
6.00
Basilicata (Italy)
L-shaped Structures Laboratory, University of Patras (Greece)
5.50
288
one side
16
2.2.1 Some existing facilities

a) In Italy: ELSA Laboratory PsD apparatus
In Figure 2.7, the geometric and loading characteristics of the reaction wall at the ELSA
laboratory are shown. The reaction wall is 20 m long by 16 m high and has a 200 MNm
bending capacity together with 20 MN horizontal shear resistance. The strong floor is 25
m long by 20 m wide and has a 240 MNm bending capacity. Fixing points are placed in a
square mesh of l.0 m and feature an anchoring capacity of up to 500 kN. The actuators
have capacities of 0.5 to 1.0 MN with strokes ranging from 0.25 to 1.0 m. The loading
pistons are fixed to the reinforced concrete slab via two stiff steel mounting cleaves, both
of which are securely fastened to the slab by means of embedded prestressed bars. All the
actuators are equipped with on-board displacement transducers that are used in the
preliminary stages to guide the pistons to their respective anchorage points before the
structure is loaded. The forces are measured by load cells mounted at the end of the
piston rod, just before the swivel joint at the cleave-end part of the piston [Negro et al.,
1994]. Once the loading assembly is set-up, the actuators become controlled by an optical
digital transducer (one per piston) that measures the relative displacement between each
storey and a steel reference-frame mounted on the reaction floor. It is also with such
devices that the structural response displacements are measured and introduced in the
pseudo-dynamic algorithm. The resolution of these digital transducers is of the order of
0.004 mm, independently of the stroke length of the actuator [Negro et al., 1994].
Anchor holes
1m spacing
Bending moment
200 MNm
16m
Base Shear
20 MN
Bending moment
240 MNm
13m
20m
4.2m
20m
5m
4m
25m
Figure 2.7 Reaction-wall at the ELSA laboratory [adapted from Joint Research Centre ELSA, 1999]
For further information, the reader is referred to the work by Donea et al. [1996], where a
thorough review of the capabilities of the ELSA laboratory and its pseudo-dynamic
implementation is given.
17
b) In Italy: University of Trento PsD apparatus

The pseudo-dynamic apparatus is located at the Department of Mechanical and Structural
Engineering [2004] (Italian acronym DIMS) of the University of Trento. The essential
parts of the Materials and Structural Testing Laboratory are the bidirectional reaction
wall, consisting of a 9.5 m tall pre-stressed concrete wall, and the 42 m long reaction
floor. Both structures are characterized by regularly placed holes for a fast and effective
connection of structures and loading devices. The overall dimensions of the PsD
apparatus are 42 16.60 9.50 metres. The wall and the floor are designed to resist
forces of several MN necessary to deform and seriously damage the full-scale test models
of structures. Two 10 tonnes bridge-cranes permit the movement and positioning of test
structures. By means of computer-controlled hydraulic actuators it is possible to expose
full-scale structures to dynamic strong forces and control the resulting displacements with
high precision. In addition to static and cyclic tests on large structures and components,
the facility is equipped for the pseudo-dynamic test (PsD) technique enabling the
simulation of earthquake loading of full-scale buildings. The hydraulic system of the
Large-Scale Testing Laboratory has these general characteristics (i) header pipeline flow of
1500 l/min, (ii) riser pipeline flow of 1200 l/min and (iii) engaged power of 600 kW and
work (high) pressure of 21 MPa.
c) In Europe: University of Patras (Greece) Structures Laboratory
The main experimental facility of the Structures Laboratory [University of Patras, 2004]
consists of a strong floor, 18 m by 16 m in plan, with anchor points every 0.5 m in both
directions, and two strong walls. These vertically prestressed walls are solid with thickness
of 1.0 m, are 5.5 m high and 6 m or 4 m in length and have an L-shape arrangement in
plan, so that they can be used for bidirectional testing. The system of the strong floor and
the two reaction walls is used for pseudo-dynamic testing of earthquake-resistant
components, subassemblies or small structures. To this end, the laboratory has already a
pump with a capacity of 190 l/min. The most powerful actuator has a symmetric capacity
of 1000 kN force and 500 mm displacement. The presently available controller is
appropriate only for quasi-static loading. For pseudo-dynamic testing, a controller has
been developed in co-operation with the ELSA at JRC (Ispra).
d) In USA: University of Minnesota MAST Laboratory
The Multi-Axial Subassemblage Testing (MAST) Laboratory located on the Minneapolis
campus of the University of Minnesota constitutes one node of the George E. Brown, Jr.
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). The MAST system specializes
in three-dimensional, quasi-static, cyclic testing of large-scale structural test specimens.
Two of the main features of the MAST system (Figure 2.8) are (i) its large-scale capacity
with the ability to test structures up to 6.1 6.1 m in plan and up to 8.6 m high and (ii) its
ability to impose 6 DOFs loading or deformation on the test structures. The MAST
System can be thought of as a large structural testing machine that is able to load
structures attached between the stiff top crosshead (in the shape of a cruciform) and
strong floor through movement of the machines top crosshead. The 6 DOFs servo-
18
hydraulic control system is capable of controlling the crosshead as a plane in space,

specifying the three translational degrees of freedom and three rotational degrees of
freedom of the centre of the crosshead in either displacement or force control (or a
mixture of the two). Two sets of actuator pairs with strokes of 400 mm provide lateral
loads up to 3910 kN in the orthogonal directions. These actuator pairs are secured to an
L-shaped strong wall with universal swivels. Four 1470 kN vertical actuators, capable of
applying a total force of 5870 kN with strokes of 510 mm, connect the crosshead and
the strong floor. Hydrostatic bearings are used in conjunction with the vertical actuators
to reduce friction loads. Vertical spacers can be mounted between the bearings and the
vertical actuators for gross height clearance adjustment. The actuators are powered by a
combination of four hydraulic service manifolds, attached to a 680 l/min hydraulic power
supply. Each actuator is configured with a 57 l/min servovalve to support quasi-static
testing [French et al., 2004].
Figure 2.8 Multi-Axial Subassemblage Testing (MAST) System [French et al., 2004]
2.2.2 Summary of main features of existing pseudo-dynamic (PsD) facilities

In order to compare the pseudo-dynamic testing facilities introduced here, Table 2.4
summarizes the physical dimensions of both the strong floors and reaction walls. As one
may observe, the heights of the reaction walls strongly differ. As already mentioned, the
specimen size is mainly related to the height of the walls. The higher the wall, the larger is
the scale of the specimen that can be tested. The number of walls is important since it
determines whether mono or bidirectional experiments can be performed. The
dimensions of the EUCENTRE strong floor and reaction walls allow for testing full-
19
scaled structures. The design requirements of the EUCENTRE pseudo-dynamic testing

facility are fully described in section 2.3.3.
Table 2.4 Performance characteristics of the PsD facilities reviewed above
Strong floor size
Reaction wall height
No. of walls
Institution
[m]
[m]
16.0
1
ELSA Laboratory (Italy)
25.00 20.00
9.5
2
University of Trento (Italy)
42.00 16.60
8.6
2
MAST (USA)
6.10 6.10
5.5
1
University of Patras (Greece)
6.00 4.00
12.0
2
EUCENTRE (Italy)
14.40 9.60
2.3 DEFINITION OF THE NEW EUCENTRE TESTING FACILITY

PERFORMANCE TARGETS
2.3.1 Local needs and constraints
When a dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility is designed, the main goal is to
develop a laboratory that provides the possibility of performing experimental tests on
structures without limitations in terms of capacity. For example, the specifications of a
shaking table should define a facility capable of simulating the mechanisms of collapse of
structures under strong earthquake motions.
To simulate real three-dimensional earthquake motion the first requirement is the number
of allowed degrees of freedom (DOFs) of the shaking tables. They must at least be three.
Secondly, the size of ground motion that can be reproduced is normally governed by its
velocity content. This is directly related to the oil flow rate that can be provided by the
pumping system and servovalves.
To test real full-scale structures the size of the platform has to be large enough to support
multi-stories buildings. The majority of test structures have a rectangular shape, e.g.
buildings, bridges, soil boxes and pipelines. In order to use the table area effectively under
the test weight limit, a rectangular-shaped table is desirable in most vibrational tests. In
order to verify failure mechanisms and to develop effective isolation systems for real
structures, the largest possible test models of the correct shape are desirable though
technical and economic conditions must be taken into account. To design a large table
the required technological know-how and cost must be accurately taken into account
since ad-hoc devices (i.e. actuators, servovalves) have to be designed and fabricated. Each
proposed test project must be financially supported. Apart from the construction costs,
the manufacturing, assembling and installing of actuators, oil-pressure supply system and
other major parts of dynamic and pseudo-dynamic facility, heavily contribute to the
choice of design specifications.
20
The current worldwide design trend is to build facilities whose velocity and displacement
performance limits are emphasized more than acceleration. The worlds largest and
powerful shaking table has been developed in Japan. The construction of the facility
(named E-Defence) at Miki-city (see section 2.1.1b) started in 1998, the research and
development for core technology were started in 1995 and the entire work has been
completed in the beginning of 2005. The implied extensive research and development
work was possible through a close cooperation of dozens of a number of research
centres, universities, independent administrative institutions and private companies.
The new outdoor shaking table in San Diego (see section 2.1.1g), on the other hand, was
designed to be the worlds first outdoor shaking table adding a significant new dimension
and capabilities to existing USA testing facility with no overhead space and lifting
constraints. The NEES/LHP Outdoor Shaking Table in San Diego is a single DOF
system with the capability of upgrading to 6 DOFs.
The new testing facility at the European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake
Engineering (EUCENTRE), features within the same laboratory a dynamic and a pseudodynamic testing facility. This choice is justified by the performance limitations of the
shaking table, which, as described below, do not allow for dynamic tests on real fullscaled structures such as three or four-storey buildings. For such structures, the
neighbouring PsD apparatus can be employed, without significant limitations.
The design of the table follows the Japanese trend of high velocity and large amplitude
requirements in order to reproduce the size of real earthquakes. The shape of the table is
rectangular like the Miki City large table and the NEES/LHP Outdoor Shaking Table in
San Diego. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the characteristics of this new
testing facility have been chosen so as to complement, rather than to compete, with
existing earthquake engineering testing facilities in Europe, and, in particular, in Italy,
summarised in previous sections of this chapter. Open cooperation with Reluis, the
Italian National Network of Earthquake Engineering University Laboratories, eased the
attainment of such important objective.
2.3.2 General description of the EUCENTRE dynamic testing facility
requirements
The importance of promoting strengthening and rationalization of earthquake-proof
structural design is one of the lessons from the most recent earthquakes. Since earthquake
vibrations involve three-dimensional movement of the structure, it should be ideal to set
up a three-dimensional earthquake simulator facility to accurately reproduce earthquake
ground motions. For the EUCENTRE shaking table, priority was given to size and
power rather than DOF in order to perform tests on full-scale or large-scale models of
test structures and foundations. Therefore, a large, powerful, one-dimensional
platform was chosen with respect to a small six DOF table with limited performance
capabilities (Table 2.2). Single-axis shaking tables are the simplest form of table. For many
21
tests it is only desirable to excite the specimen in one axis as this simplifies subsequent
interpretation of the results. In these cases, single-axis tables may provide the best
solution for performing the test if they have a large enough dynamic capacity. Single-axis
tables are also slightly simpler to control than multi-axis tables. The main disadvantage of
single-axis tables is their inability to investigate the more complex behaviour of structures
under loading in more than one axis.
Like the Miki City large table and the LHP Outdoor shaking table (section 2.1.1), the
EUCENTRE platform has a rectangular shape (see section 2.3.1). The dimensions in
plan are 7.0 m by 5.6 m as described in section 3.2.1. The size of the platform
automatically constrains the dimensions of the test specimen, be it reinforced concrete
and/or masonry buildings, shear walls, retaining walls, bridge piers, and so on. A
compromise is often required between the capabilities and the platform dimensions.
The capacity to accurately reproduce near-fault ground motion effects was considered
essential for the EUCENTRE facility since, the seismic hazard of the built environment
is controlled by near-field ground motion at long return period hazard (e.g. 2%
probability of exceedence in 50 years) for many sites. Near-field, fault normal, ground
motion records with forward directivity effects (Doppler effects) are characterized by a
large velocity pulse, while near-field, fault parallel, ground motion records are
characterized by a fling step (i.e., large step function in the ground displacement record).
This is controlled by the peak table velocity parameter. A peak table velocity of 1.5 m/s
was selected according to the available near-fault seismological data and as a compromise
between technical performance and budgetary constraints.
For the reproduction of far-field ground motions, a maximum horizontal peak ground
and peak table acceleration of 1.8g (with maximum payload, see section 5.2),
corresponding to an upper bound of the vast majority of recorded ground motion
records, was considered.
The significant frequency content of actual earthquake horizontal ground acceleration
records lies in the range between 0 to 15 Hz, while the significant frequency component
of horizontal ground velocity and displacement records lie in a lower frequency range
than that of the acceleration. A frequency bandwidth of 20 Hz for accurate
reproduction of actual full-scale ground acceleration records by the table was chosen.
With regard to the construction technology, a steel welded platform was chosen. The
platform consists of a closed steel box structure constructed in a single piece. Several
tables are made in steel or aluminium. The table could be made from several aluminium
sections bolted and glued together. The platform surface could be an arrangement of
aluminium plates or even magnesium plates. Since the table has to survive experiments
without deformations, the stiffness of steel made it preferable compared to aluminium.
22
The choice of steel was also favoured by the aim of having a platform weight close to the
maximum payload in order to ensure a simpler control.
A very stiff table with a honeycomb-like network of stiffening diaphragms giving it
strength and bending stiffness was chosen. The internal steel sheets run in longitudinal
and transversal direction for the overall length and width of the platform. Horizontal
internal plates have also been added. The table becomes very stiff with high fundamental
frequency response, which is one of the design requirements for a straightforward
control. The positions of the internal diaphragms and their spacing are also related to the
hydrostatic bearing dimensions and locations (Figure 2.9 is one example). The main
specifications of dynamic facility are summarized in Table 2.5.
Figure 2.9 Honeycomb-like network of stiffening diaphragms: one possible solution
Table 2.5 Performance characteristics of the EUCENTRE shaking table

Table size
5.6 m by 7.0 m
Table mass
32.90 tonnes
Maximum specimen mass
60 tonnes
Controlled degrees of freedom
X (longitudinal)
Peak Displacement
500 mm
Peak Velocity
1500mm/s
Peak Acceleration*
1.8 g
Maximum static force
2100 kN
Maximum dynamic force
1700 kN
Maximum overturning moment capacity
4000 kNm (1000 kN at 4 m from
the top plate of the platform)
Maximum yaw moment
400 kNm
Operating frequency range
0-20 Hz
* With maximum specimen mass
23
2.3.3 General description of the EUCENTRE pseudo-dynamic testing facility

requirements
One of the objectives of the EUCENTRE PsD test apparatus is to provide the research
centre with a powerful strong floor and reaction walls. Priority was given to the size of
the floor and height of the walls instead of DOFs. Therefore, a large PsD testing
apparatus with the possibility of testing full-scale models was chosen. The choice of
building two reaction walls (L-shaped configuration) was motivated by the idea of
testing structures in two directions.
The dimensions in plan of the strong-floor are 14.4 m by 9.6 m. The lengths of the two
reaction walls are 9.6 m and 14.4 m. Both walls are 12 m high. This is a very important
design characteristic which allows testing of structures more than three stories high. To
resist the forces which are necessary to deform and seriously damage full-scale models of
structures, the PsD apparatus must be designed with adequate characteristics. A high
stiffness is one of its main design requirements. Therefore, the thickness of both the
strong floor and reaction walls is 2.4 m.
To perform quasi-statically and quasi-dynamically tests on models, significant amount of
pressurized oil must be guaranteed for both short and long loading histories. The
operational pressure of the oil must be high enough to allow PsD tests with no
limitations on capabilities and time loading. A pressure of 280 bars is the maximum
pressure guaranteed during the test. In addition, a well-designed network of oil
distribution is required for feeding the actuators located on the walls at different heights
and positions. As described in Chapter 5, the piping system is designed to ensure a
maximum flow of 1360 l/min.
With regards to the construction technology, a precast concrete solution has been
chosen. An in-situ post-tensioned system of tendons is designed to ensure highperformance of the PsD facility (as described in Chapter 4). The maximum base
moments that can be resisted by the two reaction walls are 46120 kNm for the longer
wall and 30748 kNm for the shorter one. The main specifications of the facility are
summarized below (Table 2.6):
Table 2.6 Performance characteristics of the EUCENTRE PsD apparatus
Plan dimensions
17.6m by 12.80m
Strong floor size
14.4m by 9.6m
Strong wall height
12m
Strong wall bases
14.4 m by 2.4 m; 9.6 m by 2.4 m
PsD apparatus mass
2203.2 tonnes
Maximum resisting bending moment
46120 kNm (for the 14.4 m long wall)
30748 kNm (for the 9.6 m long wall)
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN OF THE DYNAMIC TESTING

FACILITY
In this chapter the design of the EUCENTRE shaking table is presented in detail. A brief
overview of the relevant issues in the design of the testing facility is initially presented.
The design of the main components of the facility is then illustrated. A description of the
structural and mechanical configuration of the shaking table is given. The design of the
system restraining the table motion then follows. Subsequently, the solutions adopted for
both the reaction mass and isolation system are discussed. The numerical verifications
carried out to evaluate the dynamic response of the shaking table and the design
optimization is ultimately described.
3.1 RELEVANT ISSUES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE DYNAMIC TESTING
FACILITY
The performance specifications of a powerful dynamic test apparatus like a shaking table
are driven by the aim of creating a facility which will be able to simulate the responses of
real full scale structures under real strong earthquake motions. To this end several
specifications are required. A theoretical introduction is given in the following section.
3.1.1 Specifications for the shaking table design
a) The construction technology
The construction technology is an important choice related to the way in which the
system can be fabricated in terms of materials, their assemblage, etc. For example, one
could design a steel welded platform or a steel bolted platform; aluminium and
magnesium with different assemblage procedures could also be used. The manufacturing
technology should guarantee the best performance behaviour of the table and of its
components (e.g. actuators, hydrostatic bearings, etc). If the table is to be welded, specific
welding checks must be conducted in the most critical points. The surfaces must be
perfectly plane despite the large dimensions in plan. For istance, construction of the top
plate as a single piece could be a design choice. This implies manufacturing with very high
technology to have a perfectly smooth surface. Moreover, the top plate has to be
provided with a regular grid of holes in plan to secure the test specimen. The top plate
should be able to resist deformation during testing. Precision tolerances have to be
included within acceptable ranges to ensure smooth and plane surfaces. These design
aspects are discussed in section 3.2.
26
b) Materials
The choice of construction material is limited by the specifications of the facility. If the
table must be light, aluminium gives the possibility to create limited weight platforms. If
the customer wants a heavy platform, steel is the most appropriate material with the
possibility of adding concrete blocks within the table to reach the design weight. A very
light platform has the advantage that it requires a smaller actuator to move it, which
thereby reduces the initial cost of the facility. However, a very light platform is much
more likely to be affected by significant table-specimen interaction which requires better
hardware and software systems to effectively control. Therefore the larger the platform
mass the better it is from the point of view of the specimen, but this requires larger
actuators, increases running costs and can limit the maximum accelerations achievable. A
solution of this conflict is the use of a light platform with high capacity actuators. For
small light specimens the platform is used as it is, but when a larger specimen that may
interact significantly with the table is to be tested, then additional static mass, up to the
capacity of the table, may be added to the platform. This additional mass then helps to
reduce the table-specimen interaction by increasing the platform mass that has to be
excited by the specimen. The other effect of having a larger, more massive platform is
simply the enhanced capacity of the shaking table to deal with larger scale models. The
larger the model, the simpler the scaling issue becomes. Therefore, within the limits
imposed by cost of construction of the shaking table, the running costs and the cost of
manufacture of models, the largest mass of the platform and capacity of the table should
be chosen (as described in section 3.2.).
c) Shaking table stiffness
The stiffness of the table and the bearings must be very high to reach frequency
responses beyond the range of fundamental frequencies of the test structures. The design
of a shaking table requires accurate considerations of the response frequencies of all the
components of the facility since the resonance of the response can cause unforeseen
amplifications of motions. The first frequency to take into account is the frequency
related to the oil-column stiffness. A test systems first natural mode of vibration
usually depends on the platform/payload mass and its oil-column stiffness, i.e. the
stiffness of the compressible oil in the actuators. This oil-column stiffness is important
in all hydraulic systems as it usually defines the first resonant frequency. A systems
dynamic behaviour is quite different at excitation below and above this frequency. The
oils effective bulk modulus of elasticity (or compressibility) depends on the oils material
properties as well as factors such as entrained air; temperature and mechanical
compliance (see section 5.2). Since the stiffness of a column of oil is inversely
proportional to its length, a long-stroke actuator should have small oil-column stiffness.
The overall dynamic system has a natural mode of vibration and frequency content
dependent on the mobilized mass and the actuator stiffness. The platform should be
sufficiently rigid in order not to respond itself dynamically so that it transmits the input
motion to the structure with as little modification as possible (described in sections 3.2
and 3.3). In addition, there is the variation in motion across the table surface itself. The
Chapter 3: Design of the dynamic testing facility
27
transfer of the motion across the table from the actuators to the specimen induces some
finite deflections which causes increasing acceleration deviation as the frequency
increases. For example, the basic torsional wave speed defines the ideal possible upper
limit resonant frequency in the free-free boundary condition for the table and the
foundation structures [Clark and Burton, 1978].
d) Tolerance errors
Special consideration must be given to tolerance errors by the manufacturer during the
construction phase. High accuracy is essential in order to ensure perfectly plane surfaces
of the steel diaphragms of the platform. The alignment between the sliding surfaces and
the platform must be very precise. The parallax error between the guides must be
negligible. The surfaces for the connection of the actuator to the shaking table have to be
perfectly parallel. Limits on the tolerance errors should take into consideration possible
mechanical problems, oil leakages and bearing seizures. The specifications for the case
study are introduced in section 3.3.
e) Position of the actuator connection
The position of the actuator connection influences the overturning moment effect. If the
actuator connection is below the centre of gravity of the table (Figure 3.1a), inertial forces
from the specimen and the table masses act together creating overturning moment at the
bearings. Contrarily, if the centre of gravity of the table is below the actuator connection
joint (Figure 3.1b), the inertial force of the table gives an opposing moment thereby
reducing the overall overturning moment (section 3.6).
Specimen Base Shear
Actuator Force
Table Inertial Force
(a)
Specimen Base Shear
Actuator Force
Table Inertial Force
(b)
Figure 3.1 Overturning moment contributions. (a) Sum and (b) subtraction of the
contributions of the inertial forces
28
3.1.2 Specifications for the system restraining the platform motion

An accurate design of the desired DOF is essential in the case of a uniaxial shaking table.
Space limitations could make the use of hydraulic actuators difficult. As an alternative
solution hydrostatic bearings could be introduced. The hydrostatic bearings represent
physical restraints required to prevent motion in the unwanted degrees of freedom where
active control is not provided on all axes. However there is a risk that such a restraint
system affects the motion in the actively controlled directions. The bearings should give
the directionality of the motion and compensate the effects of the overturning moment in
the longitudinal and transversal directions (see section 3.3). The main idea is to allow
sliding of the shaking table in the longitudinal direction with guides connected to the
table itself (Figure 3.7). On the external surfaces of these guides, there are thin oil films.
Their dimensions, number and locations are chosen in order to allow the desired motion
and to avoid the undesired ones. The overall system of table and guides is anchored to
the reaction mass via three steel frames (as described in section 3.4).
The bearings could be located at the sides and bottom surface of the platform (Figure 3.3
and Figure 3.7). On the side guide (Figure 3.4), the function of the viscous fluid film is to
give vertical support and to avoid overturning effects. On the bottom guide, the viscous
fluid film is used to allow longitudinal motion and avoid transversal motion. The design
of the guides, thin viscous fluid films, their number and locations is a function of the
maximum applied loads and the deformations of the table-guide-viscous fluid surfaces
(described in section 3.6).
As a possible solution, the longitudinal sliding motion could be allowed by the system
shown in Figure 3.2 (the information has been supplied by MTS System Corporation
[2004]). As one can observe, the thin viscous fluid films are located on the oblique and
bottom horizontal surfaces of the guides. The entire system is anchored to the reaction
mass by means of high strength steel bars. The disadvantage of this solution is the leak of
oil due to the inclined plane of the bearings. Furthermore, the stability of the system due
to overturning and yaw moments is not well guaranteed.
Figure 3.2 Possible solution for the hydrostatic bearings
29
a) The hydrostatic stiffness

The thin viscous fluid films provide hydrostatic stiffness k which is function of (Figure
3.3 and Figure 3.4):
k=
where:
Aeff
pt
pa
h
p
3
Aeff pt (1 t ), [ kp / mm ]
h
pa
(3.1)
: effective area where pt is active, [cm2]

:pocket pressure, [bar]
: feed pressure, [bar]
: viscous fluid thickness, [mm]
The stiffness of a couple of pre-loaded sliding bearings (in Figure 3.3 or Figure 3.4) is the
sum of the stiffness of each viscous fluid film. With reference to Figure 3.3, the total
hydrostatic stiffness is Ktot = k1+k2. The hydrostatic stiffness of the sliding bearings can
be used in the finite element simulations by defining equivalent springs corresponding to
the viscous fluid film locations (as described in section 3.6).
w1
Guide
Aeff '
Figure 3.3 Front view of the guide, and bearing areas
P=Aeff 'pt'-Aeff ''pt''

pt'
guide
pt''
Figure 3.4 Guides: side view
Aeff ''
b2
b1
2
Steel
frame
w2
Table
30
b) Bearing and table deformations

Load paths in the bearings and consequently their deformations must be evaluated. As
introduced before, the bearings must be manufactured with high precision. The tolerance
error has to be negligible and they cannot deform to an extent greater than the viscous
fluid thickness. The viscous fluid is located on the upper and lower surfaces of each of
the lateral bearings and on the external sides of the bottom bearings (as depicted in
Figure 3.28 and Figure 3.29). The deformations of table and bearings should allow the
stroke of the platform without causing mechanical problems between the bearings and
the fixed guide system. The thickness of the viscous fluid film, h, can be in the range of
0.1 mm to 0.02 mm. The thicker is the viscous fluid film the stiffer is the provided
restraint. Two different positions of the table have been considered critical for the
evaluation of bearing deformations, i.e. when the table and the hydrostatic bearings are in
the middle stroke position, and when the table and the hydrostatic bearings are in the
end-stroke position (as described in section 3.6).
c) Bearing friction
The friction force, T, given by the bearings is a function of the shaking table velocity. It
can be defined as:
T = Amet v/h
(3.2)
where:
Amet : metallic area of the bearings, [m2]
: dynamic viscosity of the fluid, [Ns/m2]
v : velocity of the shaking table, [m/s]
h : viscous fluid film thickness [m].
The hydrostatic bearings are characterized by low friction that is less than 0.5% of the
maximum design static force applied for the overall stroke of the sliding and for the
maximum design velocity (see section 3.3.1).
3.1.3 Specifications for the reaction mass design
In a typical case (Figure 3.5), the tables resultant motion is transmitted to the reaction
mass, to the isolators and dampers, then to the foundation and finally, to the underlying
soil. The reaction mass is constructed in reinforced concrete (as described in section 3.4)
and should have a typical mass ratio 30 to 50 times the specimen-table mass [Clark, 1992]
in order to reduce the tables resultant motion to the very minimum. The concrete block
could be isolated from the rest of the laboratory and the underlying structures by inflating
air suspension springs under the block.
The reaction block has dimensions generally imposed by the choice of the structural
layout and the soil characteristics. Large forces are transmitted to the reaction mass. The
horizontal force of the actuator is transmitted through the contact surface between the
31
actuator and the reaction block whereas the overturning moment is transmitted as a
couple of dynamic vertical forces, through fixed guides (as described in sections 3.3.1 and
6.4.1).
As a first possibility, the need for a rigid structure with high performance and
constructional accuracy could be fulfilled by precast concrete blocks assembled by posttensioning tendons. A totally different design could consist of casting in-situ reinforced
concrete. With this solution, the designer could increase the mass ratio more easily. The
disadvantages of this solution could be:
The construction costs,
The implication of new costs for the excavation of a large volume of soil,
The possibility of reaching the water table level,
The interaction with the foundation system of the laboratory, which could be close to
the reaction mass perimeter.
The resultant motion of the table is frequency dependent and it is filtered by the
frequency response of the reaction mass, the isolators and dampers and the foundation.
Accurate analyses must be performed in order to solve the dynamic soil-structure
interaction problem and predict the ground motion induced by the excitation of the table.
These analyses make the design optimization of both the reaction mass and foundation
devices possible (as described in section 3.4.1 and Chapter 6 for the EUCENTRE
facility).
3.1.4 Specifications for the isolation and damping system design
The isolation system is aimed at moving the response period of the reaction mass far
from the specimens fundamental response periods and in a range where the actuator
performances are small (see actuator performance curve, Chapter 5). The isolation of the
dynamic facility is a design choice when the site conditions do not allow the reaction
mass to rest directly on the supporting soil. The use of the isolation system has the
advantage to reduce the motion transmitted to the soil and to mitigate the vibrational
impact transmitted during experimental test.
The presence of neighbouring buildings with high-precision and delicate instruments at
short distance would necessitate an accurate estimation of the transmitted vibrations.
High values of peak acceleration transmitted to the foundation/soil can in fact be
potentially hazardous for structural damage in nearby buildings and in the laboratory
itself.
Furthermore the foundation soil may be subjected to high strain levels that can invalidate
the results obtained from loading tests due to the loss of coherence caused by spurious
vibrations. The isolation system should be characterized by a fundamental frequency and
damping ratio such that the amplitude of the transmitted motion within the operational
32
frequency range is minimised. Due to the necessity of reducing the transmitted motion to
the maximum, the isolators must be characterized by small horizontal stiffness and high
damping ratio. In addition to theoretical considerations, practical aspects must also be
taken into account such as the free space to locate the isolators, their installation and
maintenance and their costs. Due to space constraints, the best choice could be to put the
isolators along the perimeter of the reaction mass allowing easy mobility during
installation and maintenance phases. The solution adopted for the case of study is
described in sections 3.5 and 6.4.
Figure 3.5 Components of a typical shaking table [Clark, 1992]
33
3.1.5 Regions of flexibility

The dynamic performance of the shaking table system (Figure 3.5) can be significantly
affected by potential regions of flexibility. According to Crewes classification [1998],
these regions are shown and labelled in Figure 3.6:
1. The flexibility of the reaction mass on the suspension system/shock absorbers
system;
2. The reaction mass internal flexibility;
3. Local flexibility of support brackets on reaction mass;
4. Flexibility and any backlash in the actuator bearings;
5. Axial and lateral bending stiffness of the actuators;
6. Hydraulic oil column bulk modulus stiffness;
7. Axial, torsional and lateral bending stiffnesses of any torsion tubes or other
restraining system;
8. Flexibility of the platform.
Figure 3.6 Potential regions of flexibility in a typical shaking table [Crewe, 1998]
3.2 DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURAL AND MECHANICAL ARRANGEMENT OF

THE SHAKING TABLE
3.2.1 Final configuration of the EUCENTRE shaking table
The final configuration of the EUCENTRE shaking table is depicted in Figure 3.7. The
size of the top plate is 4.0 m 7.0 m with the possibility of extending it up to 5.6 m by
7.0 m (described later). The perimeter of the table is 3.6 m width and 6.8 m long due to
space constraints (APPENDIX A) in order to allow the full stroke of the platform. A
34
rectangular shape is assumed for the cross-section of the platform. This regular and,
apparently, simple shape has been chosen after the investigations of different shapes.
The shapes, locations and functionality of the bearings are the results of an iterative and
comprehensive study of the system deformation (described in 3.3). Two 6800 mm long
side guides which offer vertical support, and two 2100 mm long bottom guides which
guarantee both vertical and transversal restraints. The final configuration is depicted in
Figure 3.7. Each arrow indicates both the position of the viscous fluid films and the
direction of restrained DOF. The solution of the continuous guides is introduced since is
the only way of containing very large deformations and consequently avoiding mechanical
problems, as explained in section 3.2.2. Moreover, the thickness of the side bearings
(steel, C-shaped cross-section) was optimized to reduce the influence of the bearing
weight on the overall weight.
The actuator connection is located outside the shaking table in the lower part of the
transversal section to allow an easy alignment between the actuator, the guides and the
reaction mass (described in Chapter 5).
Figure 3.7 Final configuration of the shaking table: locations of the hydrostatic bearings
To limit the weight of the system within 30-35 tonnes, the number, thickness and
location of the steel diaphragms were accurately studied. The number, thickness and
dimension of the steel sheets are summarized in Table 3.1. There are nine transversal
plates, five longitudinal ones and one horizontal intermediate plate (Figure 3.8). As one
may observe from Figure 3.8(c), the front part of the table is stiffened by means of
several steel diaphragms introduced to uniformly distribute stresses from the significant
actuator force applied through a reduced area (the piston area of the actuator, described
in section 5.2). The steel plate for the connection of the actuator to the platform has a
35
circular shape (800 mm in diameter) and its total thickness is 160 mm (100 mm outside
and 60 mm inside the shaking table). Furthermore, to allow an easy connection between
the two horizontal bottom guides and the rest of the platform, additional plates are added
only along the guide length forming the small triangles shown in Figure 3.8 and Figure
3.9. All the internal steel plates are perforated so as to contain the weight of the table,
allow thermal deformations and avoid the in-phase vibrations that can give rise to
mechanical noise. The perforations vary in diameter from 90 mm to 200 mm. In
Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10 examples of transversal and horizontal sections of the shaking
table are depicted. The adjoining internal sections do not have holes of the same size
avoiding in-phase vibrations of the system. The weight of the platform is 32.90 tonnes.
Table 3.1 Number and dimension of steel diaphragms of the EUCENTRE shaking table
No. of
plates
Thickness
[mm]
Dimensions
[mm]
Top plate
30
4000 7000
Bottom plate
20
2600 6700
Intermediate plate
10
3585 6770
Transversal internal plate
10
3585 1440
Transversal external plate
15
3584 1440
Longitudinal internal plate
10
6770 1440
15
6770 1440
30
6770 1440
Longitudinal external plate
15
6770 1440
Trapezoidal horizontal ribs
10
(1285+788) 683
Vertical rib (diagonally located)
10
2263 1440
Side guide (horizontal top, outside)
30
320 6770
Side guide (horizontal top, inside)
40
492.50 6770
Side guide (horizontal bottom, outside)
30
817.50 6770
Side guide (vertical)
20
340 6770
Side guide rib
15
400 335
Side guide rib
18
10
400 335
Bottom guide
30
215 430 2095
Bottom guide rib
15
430 215
Bottom guide rib

Actuator connection plate
6
1
10
100+60
430 215
800 (diameter)
36
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3.8 Honey-comb like network of stiffening diaphragms of the final configuration:
different views (a), (b) and (c)
The platform top surface is a steel plate with a regular grid of M32 bolt holes enabling the
connection to the platform body and for mounting of specimens. The location of these
holes corresponds to the intersections between the longitudinal and transversal
diaphragms. The extended configuration of the shaking table is made by attaching two
7000 mm long steel plates increasing the test width from 4000 mm to 5600 mm. The two
additional wings are connected to the platform by means of bolts and welded plates as
depicted in Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.9 One transversal section of the EUCENTRE shaking table
Figure 3.10 Plan view of the shaking table without the top plate
37
38
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.11 Additional wings to increase the table width from 4000 mm to 5600 mm
39
The steel used is Fe430 with yielding and ultimate stresses of 250 MPa and 420 MPa
respectively. Full penetration type of welding technology has been used by the
manufacturer for the EUCENTRE shaking table. The welding technology was to be
conceived as:
Automatic submerged arc welding (about 35-40%),
Semi-automatic MIG/MAG welding for the remaining part.
The sequence of composition by welding is graphically represented in Figure 3.12. The
longitudinal plate in the middle of the platform is made in a single piece and then, stepby-step, the assembly of the platform is obtained. The welding technology and the
assembly chosen for the EUCENTRE shaking table is totally different from the one
traditionally used by MTS System Corporation. Tables made by MTS are built starting
from the top plate to which the internal sheets are welded.
Figure 3.12 Sequence of composition by welding
40
A point to be noted is that, due to temperature variations, steel thickness variations and
consequently deformations could occur. An accurate evaluation of the stresses caused by
temperature variations is required. Some views of the welding technology proposed by
the manufacturer [Tecno-cut, 2004] as well as six different types of welded sheets are
presented in APPENDIX A. As one may see in APPENDIX A, welding type 1 refers
to the top horizontal plate of the shaking table. This plate is not made of a single piece; it
is composed of two 7000 mm long sheets welded together in the longitudinal direction.
3.2.2 Design revision history
Initially the platform was in the form of an inverted trapezoid with a depth of over 1.5 m
at the centre, along with the honeycomb of diaphragms. This solution was adopted to
have a very high bending stiffness but it was discarded for the complexity of creating
stable and easily controllable hydrostatic bearings. To simplify the bearing design, a
rectangular cross-section substituted the trapezoidal one. Using a rectangular shape, the
area of the internal diaphragms increases so does the table weight. If the platform weight
increases, the maximum feasible payload on the table decreases. So in order to lighten the
table an inverted trapezoid shape was further retained in the middle of the platform (in
longitudinal direction, as depicted in Figure 2.9). This was possible for the solution
proposed for the hydrostatic bearings. Two guides were located beneath the platform and
they constrained the transversal motion and the roll rotation. The mechanical constraints
to the vertical DOF, the pitch and yaw rotations could be given by means of four lateral
hydrostatic bearings (two for each table side), located at the bottom of the platform (as
depicted in Figure 2.9). The main problem related to that solution was the abrupt change
in stiffness in the longitudinal direction. This caused unacceptable deformations of the
platform and bearings with mechanical problems for the system restraining the table
motion (as discussed in section 3.2.2).
During the sequence of the facility design [Ceresa, 2004], the actuator position was
modified several times. Initially the actuator was located inside the platform. That
solution could be justified by the aim of limiting occupied space and protecting the
actuator from possible damage during experimental tests. Nevertheless, the final choice
avoided the disadvantage of a shaking table weakened by the opening for the actuator
location.
Several changes have been made also for the position of the actuator connection with
respect to the centre of gravity of the shaking table.
To overcome the above mentioned problems, a much regular shape of the platform was
maintained along the overall longitudinal direction and the position of the actuator
connection was established to easily allow its alignment with the lateral guides.
41
3.3 DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM RESTRAINING THE MOTION OF THE

PLATFORM
3.3.1 Final configuration
The adopted solution for the system restraining the motion of the platform is represented
in Figure 3.7. Its regular shape is optimized in order to minimize deformations of both
platform and side bearings and to to avoid concentration of forces. Such a configuration
can be adopted considering the hydrostatic solution represented in Figure 3.13 6800
mm long bearings for each side of the platform giving the vertical supports and 2
bearings below the table which avoid transversal and vertical movements. The need for
adding vertical bearings is due to the overall deformation of the table in its middle part.
Hence, additional viscous fluid films are located on the side guides two 400 mm
hydrostatic bearings on both left and right side guides, two 400 mm hydrostatic bearings
for both front and back bottom guides. A schematic representation of the hydrostatic
bearing location and its functioning is depicted in Figure 3.7. With reference to Figure
3.13, the number and dimensions of the oil surfaces are summarized in Table 3.2. The
total number of oil surfaces is computed in the fifth column of the table. For the side
guides, 232 implies 2 adjacent 400 mm long viscous fluid films to form one hydrostatic
bearing, times 3 since the bearings are three for each side, times 2 considering both left
and right side guides. For the bottom guides, 22 implies 2 adjacent 400 mm long oil
films, times 2 considering the front and back guides.
Table 3.2 Hydrostatic bearings: number, location and area
Location
Restraint
Side guides
vertical
Bottom guides
Bottom guides
vertical
transversal
top
bottom
Area
[mm2]
Aeff
[mm2]
400 320
400 480
360 280
360 440
Total no.
thin viscous
fluid films
232 = 12
232 = 12
400 430
400 200
360 390
360 160
22 = 4
22 = 4
Eq. (3.1) is used to compute hydrostatic stiffness of the thin viscous fluid films. In Table
3.3 and Table 3.4, the stiffnesses are computed for two different oil thicknesses - 0.05
mm and 0.07 mm. The decision to assume the viscous fluid thickness up to 0.050.07
mm was taken in consultation with the manufacturer. In the analyses performed, the 0.05
mm thick viscous fluid was considered since it ensures stiffer restraint (section 3.6).
Considering the dynamic viscosity of the oil equal to 0.07 Ns/m2, the thickness of the oil
film h of 0.05 mm, and the metallic area of the bearings, Amet given by the sum of the area
in Table 3.2, the trend of the bearing friction force vs. the table velocity is determined
and shown in Figure 3.14.
42
(a) Longitudinal view
(b) Transversal view
Figure 3.13 Final hydrostatic and mechanical solution to avoid table deformations
Guide
side g.
Table 3.3 Hydrostatic stiffness for 0.05 mm thick viscous fluid

width length thick. Aeff
pt
pa
h
k
KG
Restr.
[mm] [mm] [mm] [cm2] [bar] [bar] [mm] [kN/m]
[kN/m]
Vert.
up
320
400
40 1008 30
60 0.05 8.899E+06
2.25E+07
Vert. down 480
400
40 1584 25
60 0.05 1.359E+07
bottom g. Vert. down
430
400
40
1404
25
60
0.05 1.205E+07 1.21E+07
bottom g. Trans.
400
200
40
576
25
60
0.05 4.944E+06 4.94E+06
43
Guide
side g.
Table 3.4 Hydrostatic stiffness for 0.07 mm thick viscous fluid

width length thick. Aeff
pt
pa
h
k
KG
Restr.
[mm] [mm] [mm] [cm2] [bar] [bar] [mm] [kN/m]
[kN/m]
Vert.
up
320
400
40 1008 20
60 0.07 5.650E+06
1.31E+07
Vert. down 480
400
40 1584 15
60 0.07 7.492E+06
bottom g. Vert. down
430
400
40
1404
15
60
0.07 6.640E+06 6.64E+06
bottom g. Trans.
400
200
40
576
15
60
0.07 2.724E+06 2.72E+06
12000
Friction Force [N]
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
Velocity [m/s]
Figure 3.14 Bearing friction force vs. shaking table velocity
In Figure 3.15 the tolerance errors specified to the manufacturer are illustrated for the
different steel surfaces of the system. The parallax error between the bearings beneath the
table has to be less than 0.03 mm; for the lateral bearings the alignment has to be
obtained with error less than 0.03 mm. The bearings and the actuator connection plate
must be perpendicular with tolerance error less then 0.05 mm. The alignment between
the external diaphragm of the platform and the actuator connection plate is characterised
by a maximum tolerance error of 0.1 mm.
// 0.03mm
//
max 0.1
//
A
0.05 A, B
0.03mm
Figure 3.15 Tolerance errors specified to the manufacturer. Dimensions in mm
44
The connection between the shaking table and the reaction mass is by means of fixed
guides through which the sliding motion of the platform is driven (depicted in Figure
3.13). One section of these steel frames is shown in Figure 3.17. The anchorage between
the frames and the reaction mass is made by jacks and high strength (M60 and M42) 600
mm long bars. The view in plan of the anchorage points is shown in Figure 3.16 circles
sign the M60 bars. The details of the connection between steel frames and reaction mass
are described in the following section.
Figure 3.16 Plan view of the anchorage points (circles sign the M60 high-strength bars)
Figure 3.17 Sectional views of the first and third fixed guides
45
46

Different configurations for the sliding bearings have been analyzed. A first possibility
was to group the restrained DOFs is a unique bearing shape, as described in Figure 3.2.
That solution was discarded for a simpler shape of the bearings (Figure 3.3). Four side
bearings and two beneath the platform (Figure 2.9) was the solution investigated before
arriving at the final one. The main problem related to that solution is the high
deformations of both shaking table and bearings. Analysing the results obtained from
those analyses [explained in detail in Ceresa, 2004], the bearing deformations were greater
than the assumed limit of 0.02 mm, which was the admissible viscous fluid film at that
design step. To overcome this problem, the manufacturer of the hydrostatic bearings
allowed an increase of the viscous fluid thickness up to 0.05-0.07 mm, thereby decreasing
the supplied stiffness. But the geometrical discontinuity of the platform shape due to the
trapezoidal section in the middle part induced concentrations of forces and deformations
in the side bearings. Therefore, the possibility of introducing two additional side bearings
in order to reduce the flexibility in the middle part of the shaking table was studied.
Coming back to a much more regular configuration of the platform, the one depicted in
Figure 3.7 was adopted.
3.4 DESIGN OF THE REACTION MASS
3.4.1 Final configuration
An accurate evaluation of the motion transmitted to the foundation/soil was performed.
A simplified numerical model of the specimen, shaking table, hydrostatic bearings,
reaction mass and soil/foundation system was set-up using the lumped mass approach
[Pavese et al., 2005]. An outcome of this study was that the optimum (for the system
under consideration) mass ratio for the shaking table and the specimen over the reaction
mass turned out to be on the order of 20. The resulting peak accelerations and
displacements at the foundation base pose no risk as far as susceptibility to soil
densification and liquefaction are concerned, as described in section 6.4.2.
The choice adopted for the design configuration of the reaction mass is depicted in
Figure 3.18. The first 2.4 m thick layer is constituted by precast concrete blocks and the
remaining part is cast in-situ concrete. The advantage of this solution is the possibility of
using the limited available space in the best way and increasing the available mass. The
weight of the reaction block is 2222 tonnes which is more than 23 times the movable
mass of the table and payload masses. The precast concrete blocks are filled by concrete,
reinforcements and post-tensioned cables to allow the creation of a unique concrete
volume. With reference to Figure 3.18, there are:
Six 7.60 m long M-22T15 post-tensioning cables [Alga, 2004] (Figure 4.6) located
vertically,
Thirty-three 7.20 m long M-15T15 post-tensioning cables in the transversal direction,
47
Twelve 17.6 m long M-15T15 post-tensioning cables in the longitudinal direction, four
cables in every 0.90 m of casting concrete,
Four 17.6 m long M-15T15 post-tensioning cables in the longitudinal direction, in the
upper part of the casting.
Both ends of the reaction block (Figure 3.18) are designed to place isolator-testing
machines. This justifies the presence of high strength bars, 40 mm in diameter,
distributed as follows:
Thirty-two 3.40 m long high strength bars in the front end. Each bar ensures a
strength of 90 tonnes, therefore the total strength is 2880 tonnes,
Fifty-six 3.40 m long high strength bars in the back end, assuring a total strength of
5040 tonnes.
The presence of these 40 mm high strength bars allows adding precast blocks at the two
ends of the reaction mass. At the front end (where the actuator is located), hollow 0.80 m
high precast blocks are used. On both the right and left hand sides with respect to the
actuator location, there are 3 blocks placed one on top of the other. At the back end, 0.80
m precast solid concrete blocks are used with 3 blocks on the right and on the left hand
side, respectively. The concrete volume of the precast blocks (2.4 m by 2.4 m as cross
section) is 48.39 m3: 20.74 m3 at the front end, 27.65 m3 at the back end of the reaction
mass.
The concrete is cast in separate steps two layers 0.90 m each, one layer 0.58 m, one
layer 0.82 m and a final layer of 2 m forming the upper part of the reaction block. The
total volume of the cast in-situ concrete is 838.7 m3. Within the overall concrete volume,
there are 52055 kg of reinforced steel bars as computed in Table 3.5 where the location,
the diameter, and amount of steel are indicated for the different levels:
LEVEL I refers to the precast blocks (0-2.4 m);
LEVEL II refers to the first 0.90 m cast in-situ concrete layer (2.4-3.3 m);
LEVEL III refers to the second 0.90 m cast in-situ concrete layer (3.3-4.2 m);
LEVEL IV refers to the third 0.58 m cast in-situ concrete layer (4.2-4.78 m);
LEVEL V refers to the fourth 0.82 m cast in-situ concrete layer (4.78-5.60 m);
LEVEL VI refers to the fifth 2.0 m cast in-situ concrete layer (5.60-7.60 m).
The reinforcement proportion is 63 kg/m3. The total amount of steel is 55006 kg,
including the 40 mm high strength bars.
At the top surface of the reaction mass, the steel frames (Figure 3.17) of the shaking table
must be anchored. The number of anchorage points is shown in Figure 3.16. The grout
for the foundation tie beams is EMACO S55 [MAC Spa Modern Advanced Concrete,
2002], with high strength (M60 and M42) 600 mm long bars [BWFixatoren, 2004; Tecnocut, 2004].
48

1760
1220
240
610
55
720
55
300
(a) Plan view

1760
300
240
240
90
90
90
50
200
1220
(b) Longitudinal view
80
40
720
High strength bars 40
210
Cables 15T15
86
Cables 22T15
18 86
Cables 15T15
Anchorage head 15T15

Anchorage head 22T15
(c) Transversal view
(d) Legend
Figure 3.18 Final configuration of the reaction mass (without the added precast blocks at
the two ends)
49
Within the volume of the reaction mass, there are apertures for conveying the actuator
pipes, the hydrostatic bearings, collecting viscous fluid in case of leak, maintenance
intervention (Figure 3.18), etc. In Figure 3.19, the location of the boxes left in the cast insitu concrete volume is given. Each box is made of wood and has a temporary function
to allow the installation of the BW-Fixators, as depicted in Figure 3.16. The 700 mm long
pipes (within the wooden boxes and the cast in-situ concrete) are plastic pipes. They are
used as temporary formwork while casting concrete so as to create space required for the
anchorage (M60 and M42) high-strength bars, subsequently filled with EMACO S55.
Figure 3.19 Construction procedure to cast BW-Fixators-RK within reaction mass

(dimensions in cm)

The solution proposed initially was to use hollow precast concrete blocks, assembled by
post-tension cables. Each of these hollow cubic blocks has a side of 2.4 m. Considering
the space available, both in plan and elevation, the base of the reaction block was
designed as a rectangle made up of 21 blocks (16.8 m by 7.2 m or 7 by 3 blocks). To
increase the mass of the reaction block, the holes within the precast blocks were to be
filled with concrete. Therefore, each assembled block weighs 34.56 tonnes. To restrain
the actuator end to the reaction block, the configuration depicted in Figure 3.20 was
proposed, where the total number of blocks is 31. A 30 cm thick layer of concrete was
50
added for the anchorage of the steel frames, reaching a total weight of 1123.2 tonnes. The
ratio of the table-specimen mass with the reaction system was 14, which is a small value if
compared with the typical ones suggested by Clark [1992].
Table 3.5 Reinforcement bars in the reaction mass volume
LEVEL
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
No. Diameter Total Length

bars
[mm]
[mm]
1008
2236
1436
1818
426
953
20
20
20
20
20
20
1211472
6168600
4208000
4622000
1260450
2832580
Total sum
Weight
[kg]
4971.76
15212.69
10377.56
11398.55
3108.46
6985.57
52055
Plan
In plan view
Shaking Table
Front Elevation
In front view
Rear Elevation
From the back
Shaking Table
Reaction Mass
Figure 3.20 First investigated shape of the reaction mass
As one can easily observe from Figure 3.20, the mass distribution is not uniform and is
unbalanced. The main difference is between the front and back ends of the reaction mass.
The configuration of the blocks in front is for creating a space for an isolator-testing
machine. A rigid rotation of the overall system is the first consequence of the unbalanced
weight distribution. A base isolation system should be designed so as to compensate the
overturning moment effects. But the control of such an asymmetric system is not
straightforward, in particular in the dynamic field.
51
Changes to the initially investigated configuration were required when the actual
dimensions of the actuator were defined by the MTS System Corporation [2004]. The
available space was to be subdivided between the size of the table, its stroke, the actuator
length, the actuator connection plates with the reaction mass and the platform itself. A
modification of the assembled reaction mass was considered. The end blocks at the back
were changed reducing their width to 1.2 m instead of 2.4 m. The new width was
determined by the economic choice of using the same formwork for the all precast
blocks. If this solution solved space and cost limitations, it contributed to unbalancing the
mass distribution, and further, to reduce the reaction mass.
To balance the distribution of the weights and to increase the mass ratio between the
table-specimen and the reaction system, a new configuration of the reaction mass was
introduced. And this design choice was related to the changed configuration of the
platform itself. The reaction block, depicted in Figure 6.19 (on left), was constituted by 31
precast concrete blocks, 0.40 m thick reinforced concrete (RC) layer beneath the fixed
guides (size 12 m long by 7.2 m width), and two boundary 2.0 m high RC walls of
thickness 0.60 m and length 12 m. The thickness of the two boundary walls was justified
by the possibility of adding two lateral steel wings to the platform to increase its area in
plan. The total mass of the reaction system was increased up to 1229.76 tonnes which is
15.4 times the table-specimen mass.
From the numerical simulations of the dynamic soil-structure interaction (section 6.4.1),
the configuration in the right hand side of Figure 6.19 was studied before arriving at the
final solution described in section 3.4.1.
For further information, the reader is referred to Ceresa [2004] where a thorough
explanation of the studied cases is given.
3.5 DESIGN OF THE ISOLATION SYSTEM
3.5.1 Final solution
The final choice for the dynamic facility of the EUCENTRE was to increase the mass of
the reaction block (Section 3.4) without the isolation and damping systems. The decision
was taken according the results of an accurate study [Pavese et al., 2005] of the motion
transmitted to the underlying soil (described in Section 6.4). The designers decided on the
basis of the comparison of two configurations - the reaction mass and the isolation
system of Figure 6.19 (on the left) and the reaction mass rigidly connected to the
foundation without isolation (Figure 6.19, on the right). The first was discarded since the
amplification of transmitted motion is unacceptable at the resonance frequency of the
system. By increasing the reaction mass, its ratio to the movable mass (given by both the
specimen and table masses) increases allowing a reduction of accelerations and
displacements transmitted to the soil. From results of the dynamic soil-structure
52
interaction (SSI) investigation, the isolation system was not needed if the reaction mass
was almost 20 times greater than the movable mass. Peak values of acceleration and
displacement at the foundation base were around 0.05g and 0.5 mm, respectively. The
consequent shear stress levels induced in the soil did not trigger phenomena of excessive
settlement, soil densification under cyclic loading or even liquefaction (Section 6.4).
A first possible design choice was to find devices that allowed easy installation and
maintenance for their vertical load capacity. Examining operational considerations
together with theoretical ones (see introduction to this section), air suspension springs
were considered the more appropriate devices to isolate the reaction block. Initially, air
springs manufactured by Firestone [Airmount isolators, 1997] were considered. The
selected Airmount model was called 248-2, double convolutions. The damping ratio
inherent in an Airmount is in the order of 0.03. The vertical stiffness, Kv, of the 248-2 air
spring is 2281 kN/m at 6 bars; the horizontal one can be assumed to be 20-50% of Kv.
Due to the uncertainty related to horizontal stiffness of Firestone air springs, alternative
solutions were investigated. In particular three different devices have been considered
the air springs of two different manufacturers (CF_Gomma [2001], and DUNLOP
AIRSPRINGS [2002]) and spiral springs [Gerb, 2000]. The T29 air spring of the
CF_Gomma Company were selected for their advantage of having the exact values of the
lateral stiffness (KH = 316 kN/m at 6 bar). The low capacity load (113.3 kN at 6 bar
gauge pressure) led to using several T29 air springs creating problems for installations and
maintenance. These air springs were considered for the isolation of the reaction mass
depicted in Figure 6.19 (on the left). The number of T29 air springs required for the
vertical loads and the overturning moment effect was 150 (Figure 3.21). The reactions
transmitted to the foundation system were computed [Ceresa, 2004] and the static vertical
displacements of the soil/foundation system are plotted in section 6.3.2.
240
30
720
240
1680
15
Figure 3.21 Layout of the isolation system considering T29 CF_Gomma model: 150 air
springs
53
This solution was studied in terms of the dynamic accelerations and displacements
transmitted to the soil/foundation (section 6.4.1). The unacceptable results derived from
these calculations were due to a low value of the reaction mass and above all, the
insignificant damping ratio of the air springs that cause a significant transmissibility value
[Chopra, 2001]. Therefore, the solution could be to add dampers to the system reducing
the transmitted acceleration and displacement. The dampers could be designed to the
maximum resonance displacement and acceleration. Viscous fluid pistons could be used.
According to results obtained from the analyses of Pavese et al. [2005], this solution was
discarded since no isolation system was required (as described in 6.4).
3.6 NUMERICAL VERIFICATIONS
3.6.1 Dynamic response characteristics
A full-refined three-dimensional finite element model of the complete table configuration
was not made since it would have required computational power exceeding the available
capabilities. Hence, separate parts of the overall structure were studied and analysed in
order to establish the modal response and stiffness of the plates. With these data, entire
steel plates with equivalent thickness providing the same stiffness as the perforated ones
were introduce in the finite element model.
A first modal analysis was performed considering middle-stroke position of the bearings.
The fundamental frequency was 91.16 Hz and the associated participating mass was in
longitudinal direction Uy = 95%. The second frequency increased up to 102.75 Hz with
negligible modal mass participation. This modal analysis, as well as those carried out for
the previous configurations, was performed considering perfect restraints. The restraints
correspond to the location of the arrows in Figure 3.7. The number, dimensions,
thickness and stiffness of the thin viscous fluid films are described in section 3.2.2.
Performing a different modal analysis considering the platform at its end-stroke position
and with perfect restraints, the frequencies were equal to the ones obtained from the
platform at its middle-stroke position.
The results of the modal analyses with the equivalent stiffness of the viscous fluid films as
restraints are summarized in Table 3.6 for the middle-stroke position and in Figure 3.23
the first two modes are shown. In Table 3.7 the results of the modal analysis of the
simulation of the end-stroke position are summarized. The fundamental frequency
decreases from 90.77 Hz to 81.37 Hz and the associated participating mass is different.
The corresponding mode shapes for this case are shown in Figure 3.24.
54
Figure 3.22 First mode shape of the final configuration (deformations in mm). Perfect
restraints
(a) 1st mode shape
(b) 2nd mode shape
springs, middle-stroke position
Table 3.6 Modal analysis results: oil stiffnesses as restraint, middle-stroke

position
Modal Participating
Mode
[Hz]
Mass Ratio
1
f1 = 90.77
Uy = 0.95, Rx = 0.15
2
f2 = 95.19
Ux = 0.91, Ry = 0.62
Rz = 0.94
3
f3 = 100.38
4
f4 = 102.80
10
f10 = 114.60
(a) 1st mode shape
(b) 2nd mode shape
springs, end-stroke position
55
56

Table 3.7 Modal analysis results: oil stiffnesses as restraint, end-stroke
position
Modal Participating
Mode
[Hz]
Mass Ratio
1
f1 = 81.37
Ux = 0.54, Ry = 0.36
2
f2 = 90.65
Uy = 0.95, Rx = 0.14
3
f3 = 102.46
Ux = 0.33, Ry = 0.22,
5
f5 = 104.88
Rz = 0.43
10
f10 = 114.60
-
An interesting evaluation of how the frequency response changes without the simulation
of the actuator piston area was carried out and the first frequency of the table decreases
from 90.77 Hz (Table 3.6) to 49.79 Hz. It is interesting to evaluate how the results of the
modal analysis change by considering the case of loaded table. The analyses pertain to the
application of the maximum payload (60 tonnes, Table 2.5) at different heights (1-7 m)
from the table top. Applying the maximum payload at a height of 1 m from the top plate,
the frequency response decreases from 90.77 Hz (Table 3.6) to 40.86 Hz (Table 3.8).
Applying the maximum payload between 1 m and 7 m, the fundamental frequency
decreases to 20.17 Hz (Table 3.9).
Figure 3.25 First mode shape: table loaded with the maximum payload at 1 m and 7 m
Table 3.8 60 tonnes payload at 1m from the top plate
Modal Participating
Mode
[Hz]
Mass Ratio
1
f1 = 40.86
Ux = 0.87, Ry = 0.21
2
f2 = 46.88
UY =0.92, RX = 0.79
3
f3 = 72.78
Uz = 0.85
Rz = 0.84
4
f4 = 82.20
5
f5 = 102.75
-
57
Table 3.9 60 tonnes payload at 7 m from the top plate

Modal Participating
Mode
[Hz]
Mass Ratio
1
f1 = 20.17
Ux = 0.61, Ry = 0.54
2
f2 = 22.36
Uy = 0.59, Rx = 0.95
Uz = 0.75
3
f3 = 71.77
Rz = 0.92
4
f4 = 82.18
5
f5 = 82.37
Uy = 0.35, Uz = 0.11
The final solution is the result of the optimization that led to discarding previous
configurations due to unacceptable deformations of the platform and the bearings, as
described in the following section.
3.6.2 Deformability of the testing system
The most critical situation to evaluate the behaviour of both hydrostatic bearings and
table is the application of the overturning moment (OTM). In Figure 3.26 the overturning
moment vs. acceleration is plotted and in Figure 3.27 the acceleration vs. the
corresponding possible effective specimen mass is plotted. The two plots have been
simply obtained with the implementation of the following equations:
Fin + Vb Fatt
(3.3)
Fin b1 + Vb b2 = OTM at the table base (at its bottom plate)
(3.4)
where:
Fin = inertial force of the platform given by mass of the table, mt, times the acceleration
ag;
Vb = shear at the base of the specimen on the table given by the product of the
acceleration ag, its effective mass meff (like it was an equivalent single DOF system), and
an amplification coefficient ;
Fatt = maximum dynamic force of the actuator;
b1 = centre of gravity of the table, measured with respect to the bottom plate;
b2 = sum of the maximum height of the centre of gravity of the specimen, measured with
respect to the top plate of the platform, and the table height.
From Eq. (3.3), the possible effective mass of the specimen is given by:
Fatt
1
m t = m eff
ag

(3.5)
Knowing meff, the base shear of the specimen can be computed and, consequently, the
OTM by Eq.(3.4). The results plotted in Figure 3.26 and Figure 3.27 were computed
assuming: Fatt = 1700 kN, mt =32.90 tonnes, ag = 0-1.8g, b1 = 0.75 m, b2 = (1.5+4) m, and
= 2.5.
58

100
90
80
meff [ton]
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
ag [g]
Figure 3.26 Possible effective mass of a specimen for different peak accelerations
Overturning Moment [kNm]
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
ag [g]
Figure 3.27 OTM at the table base for different peak accelerations
Considered test specimens

For the evaluation of the deformations caused by the OTM effect, bridge piers are
considered as possible specimens on the table. The horizontal force at the top of the
piers yields overturning moment. Scaled specimens such as short and tall bridge piers
with scale factors 1:2 and 1:3 have been considered. Square hollow RC sections with
external side 900 mm and internal side 600 mm have been used for the 1:2 scale
specimens. For the 1:3 scale piers, the section dimensions were 600 mm for external side,
400 mm for internal side. The cover concrete was 20 mm; the longitudinal bar diameter
was 16 mm and the transversal bar diameter 6 mm spacing 150 mm [Pavese et al., 2004].
59
Two different 1:2 scale piers have been considered a short pier 1800 mm high with a
square foundation (side: 2400 mm) 2100 mm high; a tall pier 2700 mm high, with square
foundation (side: 2400 mm) 1200 mm high. Similarly, two different 1:3 scale piers have
been considered a short pier 1200 mm high, with square foundation (side: 1600 mm)
1400 mm high; a tall pier 1800 mm high, with square foundation (side: 1600 mm) 800
mm high. For the scaled piers, the shear capacities and consequently, the maximum
resisting base moments have also been determined by means of pushover analyses
[SeismoSoft, 2004]. Dynamic time history analyses have been performed to evaluate the
base shears and bending moments due to the action of ground motions. In Table 3.9 and
Table 3.11, the maximum base shear and bending moment derived from the capacity
curves and time history analyses are listed. The earthquakes considered [Calvi et al., 2004]
were chosen since their characteristics were close to the performance requirements of the
shaking table. Since higher forces and overturning moments could have critical effects on
the shaking table behaviour, only the results obtained with the 1:2 scale piers are
explained in the following sections.
For the study of the bearings and platform responses due to the application of the
overturning moments of the bridge piers, the two different positions of the table are
always compared middle and end-stroke (as shown in Figure 3.28 and Figure 3.29),
respectively. Later on, the results of the analyses applying the base shears and moments
derived from the capacity curves are described in detail.
In order to numerically quantify the problems related to the deformations of the shaking
table, only the significant analyses are discussed in the following format, for each of the
two mentioned table positions:
Evaluation of table and bearing deformations due to the OTM effect of the short pier,
Evaluation of table and bearing deformations due to the OTM effect of the tall pier,
Evaluation of table and bearing deformations due combination of the OTM of the
short pier and the longitudinal force at its base,
Evaluation of table and bearing deformations due combination of the OTM of the tall
pier and the longitudinal force at its base.
The table and bearing deformations and stress distribution have been evaluated for the
design loads, i.e. the combination of the maximum overturning moment (1000 kN at 4m
from the top plate), the maximum yaw moment (400 kNm from the top plate), the
maximum longitudinal force of the actuator (2100 kN) and the maximum payload (60
tonnes).
60

Table 3.10 Base shear and bending moments for bridge piers (scaled 1:2)
SHORT PIER
From the
capacity
curves
Maximum Base shear [kN]

Max bending moment [kNm]
894
1644.8
TALL PIER
From the
capacity
curves

826
2311
From the time-history analyses

Coalinga
ChiNorthridge
Kobe
Ples.
Chi,
CSE
JMA
Valley
Taiwan
(1994)
(1995)
(1983)
(1999)
928
1037
980
958
1680
1890
1780
1740
Coalinga
ChiNorthridge
Kobe
Ples.
Chi,
CSE
JMA
Valley
Taiwan
(1994)
(1995)
(1983)
(1999)
866
945
850
944
2397
2648
2321
2638
MIDDLE-STROKE POSITION
Longitudinal view
800
600
800
1600
4000
6800
3600
800
1600
800
600
800
600
320
700
2600
2100
480
430
200
700
2100
200
400
600
Transversal view
7000
Figure 3.28 Shaking table position in the middle of the fixed guides
END-STROKE POSITION
Longitudinal view
Transversal view
7000
1600
800
1600
800
1200
320
100
1200
480
200
1300
200
400
800
4000
430
2100
Figure 3.29 Shaking table position at the end of the fixed guides
61
Table 3.11 Base shear and bending moments for bridge piers (scaled 1:3)
SHORT PIER
From the
capacity
curves

397
487
TALL PIER
From the
capacity
curves

367
685

Coalinga
Northridge
Kobe
Chi-Chi,
Ples.
CSE
JMA
Taiwan
Valley
(1994)
(1995)
(1999)
(1983)
381
422
452
434
460
511
546
493
Coalinga
Northridge
Kobe
Chi-Chi,
Ples.
CSE
JMA
Taiwan
Valley
(1994)
(1995)
(1999)
(1983)
373
419
392
415
680
780
715
773
Method
To evaluate whether the proposed solution for table and hydrostatic bearings satisfy the
design requirements, static analyses were performed. The overturning moment effects
due to the 1:2 scale piers (Table 3.10) are studied considering the two critical situations of
middle- and end-stroke positions. The combined effects due to the application of the
maximum design overturning moment (4000 kNm at the top plate), maximum design
yaw moment (400 kNm at the top plate) and the maximum dynamic longitudinal force
(1700 kN) was considered. The results of the analyses performed could give quantitative
evaluations of the system behaviour. It is clear that when the springs are in tension the
results are not completely realistic since the viscous fluid cannot work in tension. It is also
true that the simulation of the behaviour of the pressurized viscous fluid cannot simply
be made by linear springs as has been carried out in the following analyses. A specific
program is required to model the real behaviour of pressurized viscous fluid under static
and dynamic excitations. As an approximation, cut-off elements, which work only in
compression and not in tension, were used in some analyses. The effort implies longer
time for computations since a very short time step for the load increase must be given to
ensure the final convergence of the analysis. In the end, the results did not change
significantly from the ones obtained with linear equivalent springs. Therefore, the final
choice was to accept the results obtained from the analyses with equivalent springs as a
good estimate in reasonable computational time.
3.6.3 Short pier: overturning moment effects
The analysis is carried out considering the overturning moment caused by the pier
yielding force and the foundation weight as applied loads. The results in terms of
reactions and deformations of the bearings are summarized in Table 3.13 for the middle
stroke position. The deformations of the hydrostatic bearings are computed knowing the
hydrostatic stiffness of the pressurized viscous fluid (Table 3.3) and using the reactions,
resulting from the analysis. The results show that the deformations are less than viscous
62
fluid thickness so mechanical problems should not occur. The deformed shape of the
overall system is depicted in Figure 3.30. In Figure 3.31, the vertical settlements of the
side and bottom guides are schematically depicted in order to evaluate the deformation
gradient: z = -1700 mm indicates the horizontal surface of the bottom guides, z = -1500
mm and z = -1100 mm indicate bottom and top surface of the side guides, and front
refers to the table side of the actuator connection. As one can see from values in Figure
3.31, the deformations of the hydrostatic bearings are greater than the one computed in
Table 3.13. This is due to the influence of the deformation of the shaking table itself. The
maximum vertical settlement is -0.02714 mm for the right-hand side front hydrostatic
bearing, and -0.09157 mm for the bottom front one. For the middle-stroke position, the
maximum gradient of lateral guide deformations is 0.02959 mm, which is less than the
viscous fluid thickness.
The Von Mises stress is considered as a good measure of the shear, or distortional stress
in the material. This type of stress tends to cause yielding in metals. It is independent of
the amount of hydrostatic stress action on the material. The Von Mises stress is identified
in terms of the principal stress as VM = 1/2[(1- 2)2+(1- 3)2+(2- 3)2]0.5. For steel,
initial yielding can be expected when VM = y, where y is the tensile yield stress, or when
VM = 30.5 y, where y is the yield stress in shear. For this analysis case, the maximum
Von Mises stress is 37 MPa which is less than 250 MPa, the yielding stress of the Fe430.
Table 3.12 Vertical deformations due to scaled 1:2 pier OTM
OTM effect
front/back side bearing
bottom bearing
Vertical deformation [mm]

Short pier
Tall pier
middle-stroke end-stroke middle-stroke end-stroke
position
position
position
position
-0.0504
0.0704
-0.0467
0.0650
-0.0364
-0.0651
-0.0312
-0.0561
Table 3.13 Short pier OTM: bearing deformations, middle stroke position
Bearing
K [kN/m]
bottom bearing
2.4103E+07
right hand side

bearing - down
2.7193E+07
right hand side

bearing - up
1.7799E+07
Position
back
front
back
middle
front
back
middle
front
Reactions [kN]
-256
479
-108
49
189
-87
44
149
Deformation [mm]
-0.0106
0.0199
-0.0040
0.0018
0.0069
-0.0049
0.0025
0.0084
63
Figure 3.30 Deformed shape: OTM effect due to short pier, middle stroke position
z=-1100mm
0.02062
0.03017
z=-1500
0.02059
back
0.03278
z=-1700
0.047
0.00194
0.00279
0.00377
-0.00591
0.01097
0.01618
0.00682
-0.02162
0.00189
0.00260
0.00342
-0.00574
-0.00451
-0.00337
0.00319
0.01386
0.00145
-0.0044
-0.02313
-0.00579
0.051
0.07742
0.02059
-0.09157
-0.07534
0.039
-0.00464
-0.02714
-0.00342
-0.01873
-0.03522
-0.05092
-0.03515
-0.05620
front
-0.07996
Figure 3.31 Short pier. OTM effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m, -1.5
m and -1.1 m), middle stroke position
If the end-stroke position is considered, the overturning moment effects for the short
pier increase. The distribution of the reactions and deformations for the hydrostatic
bearings is summarized in Table 3.14. The deformations of the viscous fluid films are
always less than their thickness, 0.05 mm. The results change when the deformation of
the overall system is considered (Figure 3.32 and Figure 3.33). From Figure 3.33, the
maximum deformations of the right-hand side hydrostatic bearings reach -0.03047 mm
(middle bearings) and -0.07874 mm in the bottom front bearing. The maximum gradient
of lateral guide deformation increases from 0.02959 mm for the middle-stroke position to
0.07036 mm for the end-stroke position (at the bottom surface of the platform, z = -1500
mm) which can imply mechanical problems for the overall system. In terms of stresses,
the maximum Von Mises stress is 37 MPa.
64
Table 3.14 Short pier OTM: bearing deformations, end stroke position
Bearing
K [kN/m]
bottom bearings
2.4103E+07
right hand side

bearing - down
2.7193E+07
right hand side

bearing - up
1.7799E+07
Position
back
front
back
middle
front
back
middle
front
Reactions [kN]
-282
397
-123
143
140
-114
129
113
Deformation [mm]
-0.0117
0.0165
-0.0045
0.0053
0.0052
-0.0064
0.0073
0.0064
Figure 3.32 Deformed shape: OTM effect due to short pier, end stroke position
z=-1100mm
0.06232
0.07028
z=-1500
back
z=-1700
0.06236
0.07250
0.08942
0.00330
0.00156
0.01498
0.01718
4.496E-4
-0.00737
-0.00312
-2.13E-4
-0.00856
-0.03047
-0.01710
-0.01592
0.00311
0.00125
5.985E-4
-0.00677
-0.00289
-2.991E-4
0.00214
0.00373
-0.00228
-0.00729
-0.00456
-0.01411
-0.07874
-0.05481
0.06011
0.05926
-0.14385
front
m and -1.1 m), end stroke position
65
3.6.4 Tall pier: overturning moment effects

Considering the (1:2) tall pier (Table 3.10), the overall deformations are less than the
previous analyzed cases. The bearings reactions and deformations are listed in Table 3.15.
The overall deformed shape of table-guides and specimen is depicted in Figure 3.34. The
gradient of guide deformation can be computed with results in Figure 3.35. For the
middle-stroke position, the maximum side guide deformation is 0.02715 mm (at the
bottom surface of the platform). The maximum Von Mises stress decreases from 37 MPa
for the short pier to 33 MPa for the tall pier OTM effect.
Table 3.15 Tall pier OTM: bearing deformations, middle stroke position
Bearing
K [kN/m]
bottom bearings
2.4103E+07
right hand side

bearing - down
2.7193E+07
right hand side

bearing -up
1.7799E+07
Position
back
front
back
middle
front
back
middle
front
Reactions [kN]
-246
432
-104
35
170
-84
31
135
Deformation [mm]
-0.0102
0.0179
-0.0038
0.0013
0.0063
-0.0047
0.0018
0.0076
Table 3.16 Tall pier OTM: bearing deformations, end stroke position
Bearing
K [kN/m]
bottom bearings
2.4103E+07
right hand side

bearing - down
2.7193E+07
right hand side

bearing -up
1.7799E+07
Position
back
front
back
middle
front
back
middle
front
Reactions [kN]
-274
360
-119
122
127
-110
110
103
Deformation [mm]
-0.0114
0.0149
-0.0044
0.0045
0.0047
-0.0062
0.0062
0.0058
66
Figure 3.34 Deformed shape: OTM effect due to tall pier, middle stroke position
z=-1100mm
0.01865
0.02767
z=-1500
back
z=-1700
0.01862
0.03014
0.04369
0.00172
0.00276
0.00375
-0.00519
0.01024
0.01581
0.00772
-0.0184
-0.02415
-0.01716
0.00167
0.00257
0.00339
-0.00506
-0.00398
-0.00318
0.00299
0.01350
0.00160
-0.00377
-0.02062
-0.00529
0.07671
-0.11290
-0.08174
-0.06851
0.03698
0.04988
-0.00409
-0.00323
-0.03286
-0.04715
-0.03280
-0.05195
front
-0.07343
Figure 3.35 Tall pier. OTM effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m, -1.5
m and -1.1 m), middle stroke position
In the case of the end-stroke position, the results are listed in Table 3.15. The evaluation
of the deformation gradient of the side guides yields a maximum value of 0.065 mm
instead of 0.02715 mm in the middle stroke position (Figure 3.37). Figure 3.36 shows the
deformation of the overall system. In terms of tensions, the Von Mises stress is less than
the steel yield stress in shear 33 MPa versus 250 MPa.
67
Figure 3.36 Deformed shape: OTM effect due to tall pier, end stroke position
z=-1100mm
0.05731
0.06491
z=-1500
back
z=-1700
0.05735
0.06703
0.08322
0.00302
0.00167
0.01416
0.01712
-0.0028
-2.751E-4
-0.00636
7.421E-4
-0.02681
-0.01537
-0.01465
-3.535E-4
-0.0066
0.00285
0.00137
8.438E-4
-0.00607
-0.00259
0.00203
0.00369
-0.00172
-0.00644
-0.00410
0.05747
0.05844
-0.12698
-0.07085
-0.01294
front
-0.05006
m and -1.1 m), end stroke position
3.6.5 Short and tall piers: overturning moment and longitudinal force effects
When the previous two analysis cases were repeated accounting for the maximum
possible shear at the specimen base, that is the maximum longitudinal force given by the
actuation system, the results improved. In fact, it was not realistic to consider the
overturning moment as the unique load acting on the overall system. Both short and tall
1:2 scale pier OTM effects are considered with the application of the maximum feasible
longitudinal force at the specimen base. Table 3.17 and Table 3.18 summarize the
hydrostatic bearings deformations computed knowing the reactions and the viscous fluid
stiffness.
68

Table 3.17 Short pier OTM: bearing deformations, middle stroke position.
Longitudinal force applied
Bearing
K [kN/m]
bottom bearings
2.4103E+07
right hand side

bearing - down
2.7193E+07
right hand side

bearing -up
1.7799E+07
Position
back
front
back
middle
front
back
middle
front
Reactions [kN]
-140
247
-47
75
128
-36
76
97
Deformation [mm]
-0.0058
0.0103
-0.0017
0.0028
0.0047
-0.0020
0.0043
0.0055
Table 3.18 Short pier OTM: bearing deformations, end stroke position.
Bearing
K [kN/m]
Position
Reactions [kN] Deformation [mm]
back
-167
-0.0069
bottom bearings
2.4103E+07
front
185
0.0077
back
-56
-0.0021
right hand side
2.7193E+07
middle
158
0.0058
bearing - down
front
74
0.0027
back
-49
-0.0028
right hand side
middle
133
0.0075
1.7799E+07
bearing -up
front
62
0.0035
The values of vertical settlements are depicted in Figure 3.38 for the two critical positions
of the platform. In the middle-stroke position, the maximum settlement is -0.02513 mm
for the side guide bearings and -0.06630 mm for the bottom guide one. The deformation
gradient of the lateral guides reaches values of 0.00441 mm. In the end-stroke position,
the maximum settlement is -0.01369 mm for the side guide bearings and 0.04326 mm for
the bottom guide one. The deformation gradient is 0.00955 mm for the side guide.
Considering the contribution of the longitudinal force added to the OTM effects of the
tall pier, the hydrostatic bearing deformations have been computed (Table 3.19 and Table
3.20). The local values of settlement obtained from the static analyses are schematically
depicted in Figure 3.39. The deformation gradients of the side guides are almost
negligible while the ones of the bottom guides are high as in all previous analyses
0.06145 mm and 0.09349 mm for middle and end-stroke positions, respectively.
69

Table 3.19 Tall pier OTM: bearing deformations, middle stroke position.
Bearing
K [kN/m]
Position
back
-130
-0.0054
bottom bearings
2.4103E+07
front
200
0.0083
back
-44
-0.0016
right hand side
2.7193E+07
middle
61
0.0023
bearing - down
front
110
0.0040
back
-32
-0.0018
right hand side
1.7799E+07
middle
64
0.0036
bearing -up
front
83
0.0047
z=-1100mm
-0.00199
5.33E-4
z=-1500
0.00194
0.00209
0.01009
0.00181
-0.02513
-0.02513
-0.0063
-0.0065
-0.00578
-0.00102
-0.00725
0.00107
-0.00221
-0.0020 -4.818E-4
0.00194
0.0023
7.932E-4
0.00902
6.418E-4
-0.00488
-0.02116
-0.00249
0.05947
-0.1332
-0.0663
-0.02589
back
0.0171
z=-1700
-0.00608
0.00548
-4.99E-4
0.00213
0.0891
0.01557
0.03478
0.00543
-0.0500
front
-0.02507
(a)
z=-1100mm
0.00617
0.00914
z=-1500
back
z=-1700
0.00619
0.01034
0.02037
3.102E-4
8.39E-4
0.00483
0.01016
-0.01267
-0.003139
-0.01369
-0.00270
2.99E-4
7.882E-4
-5.505E-4
-0.00687
-0.00302
0.00216
7.931E-4
0.00240
-0.00316
-0.00737
-0.00365
-0.0361
-0.04326
-0.02413
0.02931
-0.00115
0.04183
-0.00779
-0.14574
(b)
-0.00311
0.00230
front
m and -1.1 m). Middle (a) and end (b) stroke positions. Maximum longitudinal force
applied
70

Table 3.20 Tall pier OTM: bearing deformations, end stroke position.
Bearing
K [kN/m]
Position
back
-159
-0.0066
bottom bearings
2.4103E+07
front
147
0.0061
back
-52
-0.0019
right hand side
2.7193E+07
middle
138
0.0051
bearing - down
front
61
0.0023
back
-45
-0.0026
right hand side
1.7799E+07
middle
129
0.0073
bearing -up
front
52
0.0029
z=-1100mm
-0.00395
back
0.00271
-0.00397 -6.953E-4
0.00191
5.93E-4
0.00866
-9.321E-4
z=-1700
0.00207
0.00191
0.00972
-0.00197
z=-1500
-7.18E-4
0.00140
0.00555
0.01352
0.03357
-0.00552
-0.00653
0.00783
0.00127
-0.02192
-0.002214
-0.00473
0.00227
-0.00583
-0.00524
-0.00121
7.96E-4
-0.00476
-0.01864
-0.00199
0.05875
-0.11792
-0.05647
-0.01906
0.00156
-0.00778
-7.511E-4
front
-0.01853
(a)
z=-1100mm
0.00117
0.00377
z=-1500
back
z=-1700
0.00118
0.00488
0.01417
3.37E-5
9.578E-4
0.00401
0.01010
-8.578E-4
-0.00701
-0.00279
0.00223
-0.01048
-0.02773
-0.01196
-0.00143
3.132E-5
9.052E-4
-3.052E-4
-0.00617
-0.00272
-0.00211
6.825E-4
0.00235
-0.0026
-0.00652
-0.00319
-0.00245
0.02658
0.04101
-0.12698
(b)
-0.03538
front
-0.01937
m and -1.1 m). Middle (a) and end (b) stroke positions. Maximum longitudinal force
applied
71

Table 3.21 Vertical deformations due to scaled 1:2 pier OTM and
longitudinal force
Short
pier
Tall pier
OTM effect + longitudinal
force
middle-stroke end-stroke middle-stroke end-stroke
position
position
position
position
bottom bearing
0.0040
-0.0669
-0.0110
-0.1025
-0.0033
-0.0615
0.0042
-0.0935
3.6.6 Effects of the maximum design loads

In the following analyses, a combination of the design loads is applied to the table in
order to evaluate the response of the overall system in its two critical positions. In
particular, the loads were applied on a greater area of the top plate of the table. In
previous analyses, the foundation area was located exactly at the centre of the platform.
This created a concentration of loads and deformations at the ends of the bottom guides.
The maximum overturning moment, 4000 kNm, given by a force of 1000 kN at 4 m
from the top plate of the platform was applied. The maximum design yaw moment (400
kNm at the top plate), the maximum longitudinal force (2100 kN) and a vertical load of
60 tonnes were applied. The deformed configurations are depicted in Figure 3.40 and
Figure 3.43 for the two critical positions.
The computed deformations for the hydrostatic bearings in the middle- and end-stoke
positions are summarized in Table 3.23 and Table 3.24. They are less than the viscous
fluid thickness. The results including the computed gradient of deformations are
acceptable. For the middle-stroke position, the maximum vertical settlement of the side
guides is 0.0427 mm (Figure 3.41); for the end-stroke position, it is -0.0228 mm (Figure
3.44), less than the 0.05 mm limit value.
The Von Mises stresses of the shaking table are plotted in Figure 3.42 and Figure 3.45.
The maximum value reaches 42 MPa for the middle-stroke position and 44 MPa for the
end-stroke position.
Table 3.22 Vertical deformations due to design loads
OTM effect + longitudinal
force + yaw moment +
middle-stroke end-stroke
payload
position
position
-0.0406
0.0427
bottom bearing
-0.0169
-0.0228
72
Figure 3.40 Deformed shape due to maximum design load application, middle stroke
position
z=-1100mm
0.01578
0.0222
z=-1500
0.01606
back
0.02451
z=-1700
0.03748
0.00162
-4.41E-4
-6.598E-4
0.00791
0.00377
-0.00512
0.00166
-2.439E-4
-3.759E-4
0.00241
0.00389
-9.267E-4
0.00498
0.02709
0.01645
-0.00386
-0.00315
-0.00226
-0.01484
-0.02245
-0.01872
-0.00350
-0.00326
-0.00234
-0.00274
-0.01969
-0.00634
-0.07575
-0.05886
-0.05721
-0.02431
-0.04092
0.02446
-0.04692
front
-0.07896
Figure 3.41 Design load effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m, -1.5 m
and -1.1 m), middle stroke position
Table 3.23 Design loads: bearing deformations, middle stroke position
Bearing
K [kN/m]
Position Reactions [kN] Deformation [mm]
back
-119
-0.0049
bottom bearings
2.4103E+07
front
318
0.0132
back
-50
-0.0018
right hand side
2.7193E+07
middle
66
0.0024
bearing - down
front
175
0.0064
back
-40
-0.0022
right hand side
1.7799E+07
middle
66
0.0037
bearing -up
front
137
0.0077
Figure 3.42 Von Mises stresses due to maximum design load application, middle stroke
position
Table 3.24 Design loads: bearing deformations, end stroke position
Bearing
K [kN/m]
Position
back
-89
-0.0037
bottom bearings
2.4103E+07
front
303
0.0126
back
-43
-0.0016
right hand side
2.7193E+07
middle
66
0.0024
bearing - down
front
137
0.0050
back
-37
-0.0020
right hand side
1.7799E+07
middle
88
0.0049
bearing -up
front
109
0.0061
Figure 3.43 Deformed shape due to maximum design load application, end stroke
position
73
74
z=-1100mm
0.03799
0.04218
z=-1500
back
z=-1700
0.03809
0.04379
0.05429
0.00203
-0.00112
0.00806
0.00145
0.00214
0.00111
0.03011
-0.00168
-0.00498
-0.00230
-0.01732
9.864E-4
-0.001375
-0.09
-0.001784
-7.902E-4
-0.00123
-0.00449
-0.00232
7.141E-4
4.156E-4
-0.00216
-0.00398
-0.00504
-0.01313
-0.05543
-0.06022
0.01159
-0.07823
front
Figure 3.44 Design load effect: vertical deformations of the bearings (z = -1.7 m, -1.5 m
and -1.1 m), end stroke position
Figure 3.45 Von Mises stresses due to maximum design load application, end stroke
position
The final solution for the shaking table and bearings could be considered satisfactory
since the deformations are within the limits imposed by the thickness of the pressurized
viscous fluid. The actual deformations should also be computed taking into account the
stiffness of the steel carrier frame (Figure 3.13), which could contribute to contain the
deformations of both the platform and sliding bearings for the applied loads.
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF THE PSEUDO-DYNAMIC

TESTING FACILITY
This chapter describes the design of the pseudo-dynamic (PsD) testing facility at the
EUCENTRE laboratory. The main issues relevant for the design phase are briefly
introduced. The structural configuration of both the strong floor and the reaction walls is
given. The optimization that led to the final configuration for both the strong floor and
reaction walls of the testing apparatus is described in the section related to the stiffness
evaluation of the PsD apparatus. The design of the post-tensioning system is then
illustrated. Finally, a description of the design of the foundation system is given.
4.1 RELEVANT ISSUES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PSD FACILITY
In some circumstances, it may be essential to test at full-scale, either because testing at a
reduced scale would be too restrictive in terms of the types of materials that could be
used or because construction of a small model would be too difficult. In these
circumstances, shaking tables are not likely to be appropriate for most structures. On the
other hand, pseudo-dynamic test rigs allow full-scale specimens to be tested, although not
with actual inertia forces. A reaction wall is a large, very stiff wall that is used to provide
support for actuators that are then used to deform large or life-size structures. Such a
facility can be used to perform static or cyclic tests of large structures, but it is also
possible to use a technique called pseudo-dynamic testing to simulate earthquake loading
of full-scale structures.
The performance characteristics of a PsD testing facility should allow testing full-scale
structures such as bridge piers, multi storey reinforced concrete and/or masonry
buildings. A few important issues related to a PsD facilitys performance are enlisted in
the following. The optimum performance of the testing facility is influenced by each one
of the following points that are, in turn, strongly correlated:
The dimensions of the strong floor and walls are a limitation to the type of tests.
The construction technology affects the high performance characteristics required for
the facility. In fact, one can chose a classical technology such as cast in-situ concrete
for walls and floor. An alternative technology could be to assemble precast concrete
blocks. In this case, a particular technology must be selected for the steel
reinforcement, as well. For example, post-tensioned steel cables to assemble the whole
precast structure, absorb the tensile stresses in the concrete and maintain certain stress
levels despite tension drops, could be an alternative.
76
The choice between traditional concrete and precast blocks is also influenced by the
fact that the former could lead to deformations of the reaction surfaces due to
duration effects such as concrete shrinkage rendering the reaction surfaces no longer
perfectly plane. Moreover, during the construction phase, the regularity and accuracy
of surfaces is much higher with precast concrete than with cast in-situ concrete.
The materials used for the construction of the facility are chosen to build a nondeformable structure. Hence, the concrete must be of high compressive resistance and
the steel of high tensile resistance.
The reaction wall stiffness would have to be large enough to permit application of high
horizontal forces required for tall test specimen, thereby inducing negligible
deformations in the wall itself. The floor has to be rigid enough not to deform for the
forces applied to the walls. As a consequence, negligible uplift of the floor is a design
constraint. The reaction floor and wall stiffness must be comparable.
4.2 DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EUCENTRE

PSD APPARATUS
According to the general considerations of the previous section, the design of the new
PsD apparatus aimed at a high performance testing facility with the possibility of
performing experiments without significant limitations in terms of dimensions, materials,
structural technology and applied forces. Twelve metre high walls were chosen as a
compromise between performance targets and construction costs. The dimensions in
plan of the strong floor are 16.8 m by 12 m (see the structural layout choices,
APPENDIX A). A precast concrete solution by an assembly of precast blocks was
chosen over cast in-situ concrete. These blocks have a cubic shape of 2.4 m side with an
internal cubic opening of 1.2 m side. Each concrete block weighs 25.92 tonnes and has an
inertial stiffness of 2.59 m4.
The final configuration (Figure 4.1) of the PsD apparatus is as follows:
A 12 m high strong wall, 9.6 m by 2.4 m (20 precast hollow concrete blocks, 518.4
tonnes),
A 12 m high strong wall, 14.4 m by 2.40 m (30 precast hollow concrete blocks, 777.6
tonnes),
The strong floor 16.8 m by 12 m, with a thickness of 2.40 m (35 precast hollow
concrete blocks, 907.2 tonnes).
Testing full-scale structures is one aims of the facility; therefore the dimensions of
reaction walls and floor are comparable to a two or three storey building.
77
Chapter 4: Design of the pseudo-dynamic testing facility
2,4
12
14,4
16,8
9,6
9,6
2,4
Figure 4.1 Final configuration of the PsD test apparatus: view in plan
4.3 STIFFNESS EVALUATION OF THE PSD APPARATUS

To evaluate whether the proposed configuration (Figure 4.1) could be acceptable in terms
of the required performances of the PsD testing facility, finite element analyses were
required. The finite element model was created by solid three-dimensional elements using
the structural program SAP2000 [Computer and Structures, Inc. 1995]. In this analysis
phase, the soil was not taken into account in the finite element model. The joints at the
base of the model were restrained only in the vertical direction. The simulation of the
soil-structure interaction is carried out in section 6.3.3.
Different possible specimens were taken into account (bridge piers, reinforced concrete
and masonry buildings) but the most critical one was used to evaluate the responses of
the PsD configuration (Figure 4.1). From a parametric study, the most critical test would
be the simultaneous application of three maximum yielding forces on to one wall,
corresponding to three bridge piers.
The requirements to numerically simulate the experiments were the following:
After the choice of cross-sections and heights of the piers, the reinforcement
percentages, yielding moments (and the ultimate moments) and consequently, yielding
forces (and the ultimate forces) were computed by means of moment-curvature
analyses (SVVS program [Calvi and Pavese, 2000]).
The yielding forces of the considered piers were then applied to each wall in the finite
element model.
78
In the analysis phase the three yielding forces of the bridge piers were applied to each of
the two walls with the aim of evaluating:
a) The displacements at the top of the wall (taking into account the amount of
displacement which corresponds to the yielding or ultimate force of the piers).
b) The stiffness of the two walls and in particular, checking if the thickness and the
flexibility of the walls conform to the performance limits.
c) The deformations of the floor checking, for example, whether the flexural
moments of the walls can cause an uplift of the floor itself.
d) The amount of tensile stresses at the base of the walls. This value aids in
estimating the amount of post-compression required through the tendons.
e) The number of cables needed in the floor and walls.
f) The maximum resisting flexural moment of each wall and consequently, the
maximum forces applicable to the walls in different positions and heights.
The piers used for the simulation were already tested at ELSA laboratory, in Ispra
[ECOEST, 1996]: 7, 14 and 21 m high piers, without considering the deck connection.
During the experimental tests performed at the ELSA laboratory, the specimens were of
1:2.5 scales. Here, the bridge piers were scaled 1:2. The cross section of the bridge piers is
depicted in Figure 4.2. Three different longitudinal reinforcement percentages (Figure
4.2) are chosen as parameters retaining all other geometric properties:
section 1: 0.500% Asl
The material properties are summarized in Table 4.1. The yielding flexural moments of
the piers were computed (considering axial force-moment interaction) and consequently,
the yielding forces to be applied to the reaction walls. The performance capacity curves
are quite flat after the yielding point for the considered bridge piers. This is due to their
large percentage of reinforcement and high strength steel. Hence there is negligible
difference between yielding and ultimate moments. The determination of the yielding
moments was carried out by means of moment-curvature analyses (SVVS computer
program [Calvi and Pavese, 2000]).
Table 4.1 Material properties of the piers
Concrete (stress-strain model
Longitudinal reinforcement
Transversal reinforcement
MPP84 in SVVS program [Calvi (experimental stress-strain
(bilinear stress-strain curve):
and Pavese, 2000])
curve):
fy=520MPa
Rck=300
fy=550MPa
fck=30*0.83=24.9MPa
fu=750MPa
fu=600MPa
fc= fck*1.3 35MPa
y=0.25%
y=0.27%
fct 4MPa
u=12%
u=6%
u=1%, cc=0.2%
i=1.25%
Es=210000MPa
Ec=28000MPa
Es=210000MPa
79

Section 1: %Asl=0.500
1000
1000
1000
8F 14
7F 14
20F 8
7F 12
8F 12
600
20F 8
7F 14
8F 14
2000
20F 8
1600
600
2000
20F 8
1600
2000
600
16F 18
13F 18
20F 10
1600
8F 12
7F 12
20F 10
13F 18
16F 18
transversal reinforcement 4F 8, vertical space

s=100mm
cover concrete 25mm
Figure 4.2 Pier cross section: three different longitudinal reinforcement percentages
(scaled 1:2)
In addition, two different vertical loads were applied at the top of the scaled specimen
250 tonnes (for the three pier sections) and 750 tonnes (only for section 1). The yielding
moments have been determined by the bi-linearization of the moment-curvature plots,
using the equal energy approach. The results are summarized in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3.
The ultimate/yielding forces of the 3.5, 7.0 and 10.5 m high specimens for each of the
three section types are the loads for the FE solid models. The worst case is due to the
forces of section 3 (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 Yielding and ultimate forces and moments from moment
curvature analyses (N = -2500 kN)
Axial load = -2500 kN for the scaled 1:2 specimens
Scaled Pier Height [m]
Fy [kN] My [kNm] Fu [kN] Mu [kNm]
Sec. 1
1499
5180
1701
5954
Sec. 2
1675
5790
1934
6768
3.5
Sec. 3
3243
11068
3958
13853
Sec. 1
754
5180
851
5954
7.0
Sec. 2
838
5790
967
6768
Sec. 3
1622
11068
1979
13853
Sec. 1
503
5180
567
5954
10.5
Sec. 2
562
5790
641
6768
Sec. 3
1081
11068
1315
13853
where: Sec. 1 refers to % Asl = 0.500 ( = 5200 mm2), Sec. 2 refers to % Asl = 0.618 ( = 6427 mm2),
Sec. 3 refers to % Asl = 1.690 (= 17576 mm2).
80

Table 4.3 Yielding and ultimate forces and moments from moment
curvature analyses (N=-7500 kN)
Axial load = -7500 kN for the scaled 1:2 specimens
Scaled Pier Height [m]
Fy [kN] My [kNm] Fu [kN] Mu [kNm]
3.5
Sec. 1
2756
9468
2628
9197
7.0
Sec. 1
1369
9468
1314
9197
10.5
Sec. 1
925
9468
876
9197
In Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5 the stress responses of the final configuration are shown for
the two load cases (when each of the two walls is loaded). Performing the analysis of the
three piers described above, for each of the mentioned cases (Table 4.2), the
displacements of the loaded nodes and the top of the wall were checked. The application
of the 3 forces causes tensile stresses at the base of each wall. The maximum overturning
moment at the wall base is given by:
Mov = Fu1 h1 + Fu2 h2+ Fu3 h3 = 41514 kNm
(4.1)
This moment Mov gives rise to tensile stresses for both walls.
The maximum tensile stresses in the walls are of the order of 46-48 kg/cm2
(APPENDIX D) for both walls. As rough estimate of the numerical results the
following check was made. For a 2.4 m thick wall (Figure 4.24), the resultant force is R =
Mov/lever arm = 41514/1.6 = 25947 kN. From Mov = 45 kg/cm2. Considering the
self-weight of the wall, 3 kg/cm2, the tension stress is: 45 3 = 48 or 42 kg/cm2. This
result seems to be in good agreement with the stress values shown in Figure 4.4 and
Figure 4.5, obtained from the FE model. The displacements of the top of the walls and of
the piers are summarized in APPENDIX E. The maximum value at the top of the 9.6
m long wall is 0.749 cm, and at the top of the 14.4 m long wall is 0.482 cm.
To quantify the stiffness of the strong floor due to the applied overturning moments, the
lifting of the floor has been evaluated. A more critical case is with the forces from piers
with Asl equal to 1.69% (APPENDIX E, sec. 3), applied to the shorter wall. An iterative
procedure has been followed removing, at every step, the vertical restraints of those joints
with tensile forces and finally, a maximum vertical lift of 0.0244 cm has been determined.
The displacements of the top of the wall and the uplift of the floor are summarized in
Table 4.4 together with the tensile stresses at the wall base.
Table 4.4 Performance checks of the final PsD configuration
Final configuration (Figure 4.3)
shorter wall 0.749
shorter wall
Maximum
Maximum
longer wall 0.482
longer wall
-2
tensile stress [kg cm ]
displacement [cm]
strong floor 0.024
48.20
47.50
Figure 4.3 Final PsD structural configuration: 3D view
Figure 4.4 Stress field for the shorter wall (9.6 m) of the final PsD configuration
81
82
Figure 4.5 Stress field for the longer wall (14.4 m) of the final PsD configuration
From the numerical results (Table 4.4), the described configuration (Figure 4.3) was
chosen for its optimal performance. The tensile stresses in the concrete are removed by
an external post-tensioning system applying a constant design pressure. Therefore, to
complete the PsD design, the number of cables, the consequent maximum resisting
flexural moments and the maximum applicable forces must be determined.
4.4 DESIGN OF THE POST-TENSIONING SYSTEM
The post-tensioning stress is applied by means of a post-tensioned system of cables. The
Alga Cable T15 system was chosen for the EUCENTRE facility. The system includes a
wide range of cables manufactured with 0.6 (inch) strand of normal production capable
of covering the range of stressing forces and variuos anchorage types required for the
post-tensioning technology. The cables are made up of very high tensile steel 0.6
strands, whose characteristics are listed in Table 4.5. The bundle of strands is encased in a
sheath of corrugated steel strip in case of internal tendons, or in high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) tubes in case of external ones. To ensure a better protection of the
strands from corrosion and for electrical insulation, it is advisable to use a corrugated
HDPE sheath of the corrugated steel. The strands are formed with seven steel wires: one
central wire around which the other six are wrapped. They are generally supplied already
stabilized (low relaxation) and certified according to the regulations by an independent
laboratory. The mechanical characteristics of the most commonly used strands, according
to prEN10138 norms ( UNI 7676, B.S. 5896-80) and ASTM A416-93 are listed in
Table 4.5 [Alga, 2004]. The anchorages are fixed to the formwork by nuts and screws.
83

Table 4.5 Mechanical characteristics of the most commonly used strands [Alga, 2004]
Norms
pr EN
10138
ASTM
A41693
Nominal
diameter
Type
Nominal
area
mm
15.2
15.2
16.0
16.0
15.24
inch
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Y1770S7
Y1860S7
Y1770S7
Y1860S7
Grade250K
mm2
140
140
150
150
139.35
breaking
fpk
Fpk
kN
N/mm2
248
1770
260
1860
265
1770
279
1860
240.2
1720
15.24
0.6
Grade270K
140.00
260.7
1860
Characteristics values
0.1%proof
Fp(0.1)k
fp(0.1)k
kN
N/mm2
213
1520
224
1600
228
1520
240
1600
-
1% deformation
Fp(1)k
fp(1)k
kN
N/mm2
220
1570
234
1670
236
1570
251
1670
216.2
1550
234.6
1680
In italic: values shown in the Norm
The latter, when properly greased, can easily be removed after concreting. All
connections along the cable must be carefully sealed with adhesive tape or heat shrinking
sleeves. Mechanical stressing anchorages type M (Figure 4.6) is formed by a steel
anchor head, on which the strands are individually gripped by specific wedges, and by a
circular casting unit.
Figure 4.6 Mechanical stressing anchorage types M [Alga, 2004]
In Figure 4.7, the classification M-12T15 indicates stressing anchorage type M for a cable
of 12 0.6 strands. The frontal view of the different stressing anchorage type M is
reported in Figure 4.6.
The post-tensioning jacks have been designed by ALGA Cable using a patented concept,
which has allowed substantial reduction in the overall size and weight without over
stressing the materials involved and working with normal hydraulic pressures. The jack is
designed with several tubes which individually bear each strand over its entire length. In
such a way, the area between each tube effectively participates in the post-tensioning. The
jack is placed over the strands and when tensioning starts they are automatically and
simultaneously engaged in the pulling head of the jack. Once the required elongation and
load are reached, the lock-off devices of the jack can be activated to home the wedges in
the anchor head uniformly. The tensioning can be accomplished in more steps based on
the elongation of the cable.
The external post-tensioning system is designed in order to apply a constant compression
of 70 kg/cm2, which is an acceptable value without causing concrete crushing.
84
The computation of the required tendons is carried out separately for the vertical and
transversal cables for the reaction walls, and for the horizontal cables for the strong floor.
For the vertical tendons in the walls:
The area Acb of the concrete block is 43200cm2. Therefore, the axial load Ncb due to postcompression c of 70 kg/cm2 is equal to:
Ncb = c Acb = 3024 tonnes
(4.2)
The area As of a 0.6 strand is 1.40 cm2. The initial stress applied to the strand pc is equal
to 13500 kg/cm2 but taking into account the stress drop due to viscosity and relaxation
(due to long-term loading), one can consider, as a first approximation, a reduction of
10%. Hence, pc is assumed to be equal to 12150 kg/cm2. Therefore, the axial load of one
0.6 strand subjected to stress pc of 12150 kg/cm2 is:
Ns = pc As = 16.89 tonnes
(4.3)
Hence, the number of required strands is given by:

Ncb/Ns = 179.1 strands of 0.6
(4.4)
From the ALGA catalogue (see Figure 4.7) [2004], the tendons could either be 7 type27T15, or 6 type-31T15. Due to the geometry and the symmetry of the hollow concrete
section, six 31T15 cables that provide a post-compression of 72.72 kg/cm2 have been
chosen. In Figure 4.8 a schematic drawing of the cross-section of a precast concrete block
with the openings 0.360 m is the diameter of the casting unit, 0.260 m is the diameter
of the anchor head, 0.115 m is the diameter of the sheath for the six 31T15 tendons is
illustrated.
Knowing the number of tendons, it was possible to compute the maximum resisting
flexural moment at the base of each wall and, consequently, the applicable forces at
different heights. The inertia of the wall is computed considering a single 2.4 m block:
J = moment of inertia of the hollow section with 6 holes for the
casting units (Figure 4.8) = 2.53E+08 cm4 for one block
(4.5)
The modulus of flexural resistance w for one block is given by:

w = J/L = 1.053E+06 cm3
(4.6)
The maximum resisting flexural moment is then equal to the total stress multiplied by the
modulus w. The total stress takes into account the contribution of the self-weight of the
wall. The 9.6 m long wall weighs 518.4 tonnes that produces a compression stress sw of 3
kg/cm2. The 14.4 m long wall weighs 777.6 tonnes also resulting in a compression stress
sw of 3 kg/cm2. Therefore, for one precast concrete block and c = 70 kg/cm2:
M max
1block
= (c + sw) w = 73 1.053E+06 = 7.687107 kNm
(4.7)
Figure 4.7 Stressing anchorage type M [Alga, 2004]
85
86
2,4
0,9
0,36
The maximum resisting flexural moments for the whole wall length are:
Mmax = 46120 kNm for the 14.4 m long wall,
Mmax = 30748 kNm for the 9.60 m long wall.
2,4
Figure 4.8 Cross-section of the precast block with the perforations for the 31T15 tendons
Knowing the maximum resisting moments of both walls, it was possible to compute the
ratio of the maximum applicable forces to a wall with respect to the other 30748/46120
= 0.667.
The next step was to evaluate the three maximum forces applicable simultaneously to the
walls at 3.5, 7 and 10.5 m. For the 14.4 m long wall the maximum resisting flexural
moment Mmax is equal to F1 h1 + F2 h2 + F3 h3 where Fi (i = 1,3) and hi (i = 1, 3) are
the forces and the heights of the three piers, respectively. Considering the same pier
heights as in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 and assuming that the base moments are equal
(since the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement is the same for the three piers), one
obtains:
Mmax/3 = M1 = M2 = M3 = 46120 kNm/3 = 15373 kNm is the maximum moment at the
base of each pier. And finally the maximum forces applicable simultaneously to the wall
are:
Fmax_1 = 1464.1 kN at 10.5 m
Fmax_2 = 2196.1 kN at 7.0 m
Fmax_3 = 4392.3 kN at 3.5 m
For the 9.6 m long wall one obtains:
Mmax/3 = M1 = M2 = M3 = 30748 kNm/3 = 10249 kNm is the maximum moment at the
base of each pier. And finally the maximum forces applicable simultaneously to the 14.4
m long wall are:
Fmax_1 = 976.1 kN at 10.5 m
Fmax_2 = 1464.1 kN at 7.0 m
Fmax_3 = 2928.3 kN at 3.5 m
87
From these values one can see that the forces from the three piers with percentagle of Asl
equal to 1.690 (sec.3, Table 4.2) are greater than the maximum forces applicable to the 9.6
m long wall. Hence, this test was not recommended on the shorter wall.
In Figure 4.9 the trend of the compressive/tensile stresses are shown when each wall is
subjected to the three maximum feasible forces computed above. For the 9.6 m long wall
the maximum tensile stresses are around 47-50 kg/cm2. For the 14.4 m long wall the
tensile stress is between 51.3-55 kg/cm2.
In Table 4.6, the values of the maximum force applicable to one wall at different heights
(starting from the level of the strong floor) are summarized. Fmax_c is the concentrated
force at the specified height, Fmax_d is the force distributed along the entire length of the
wall at the specified height.
Table 4.6 Maximum applicable forces to the reaction walls: concentrated or
distributed for the wall length
14.4m long wall
9.6m long wall
Height [m]
Fmax_c [kN] Fmax_d [kN] Fmax_c [kN] Fmax_d [kN]
1
46120.00
3202.78
30748.00
3202.92
2
23060.00
1601.39
15374.00
1601.46
3
15373.33
1067.59
10249.33
1067.64
4
11530.00
800.69
7687.00
800.73
5
9224.00
640.56
6149.60
640.58
6
7686.67
533.80
5124.67
533.82
7
6588.57
457.54
4392.57
457.56
8
5765.00
400.35
3843.50
400.36
9
5124.44
355.86
3416.44
355.88
10
4612.00
320.28
3074.80
320.29
11
4192.73
291.16
2795.27
291.17
12
3843.33
266.90
2562.33
266.91
For the transversal tendons:

To evaluate the number of tendons in the transversal direction of the two walls, the shear
stress demand has to be utilised from the previous analyses. To determine the resisting
shear stress one has to take into account the friction coefficient between one block and
the other, as follows:
D C
where:
D is the maximum shear stress demand,
C is the maximum shear stress capacity,
is the friction coefficient, set equal to 0.30.
(4.8)
88
Figure 4.9 Stress trend: each wall subjected to its maximum forces
89
In the 14.4 m long wall the maximum shear stress is 8 kg/cm2 (in APPENDIX D), so
four tendons 15T15 were chosen. The force given by the strands is:
V = 15 4 16.89 tonnes = 1014.4 tonnes
(4.9)
The corresponding stress capacity is given by the shear V and the concrete area resisting
shear:
C = 35.19 kg/cm2
(4.10)
This verifies equation (4.8) since: C = 35.19 0.3 = 10.55 kg/cm2 D .

The same calculations were repeated for the shorter wall. Four 15T15 tendons and six
31T15 tendons are required in each block in the transversal and vertical directions,
respectively. For the strong floor four tendons 22T15 were chosen both in longitudinal
and transversal direction. The maximum stresses in the x- and y-directions are equal to 12
kg/cm2 (in APPENDIX D).
Figure 4.11 gives a clear idea of the final configuration of the reaction walls and floor.
Each block is named in a different way for a total of 13 different block typologies. Four
different blocks have been designed for both longer and shorter walls. For the floor, nine
different blocks are used. In wall A 14.08 metres of 0.6 strand are provided by thirty-six
15T15 and forty-eight 31T15 tendons. In reaction wall B, 21.01 metres of 0.6 strands are
used subdivided into thirty-six 15T15 and seventy-two 31T15 tendons. For the strong
floor, 16.25 metres of 0.6 strands are provided by ninety-six 22T15 tendons. In Figure
4.12, Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14 the location, number and the maximum force of the
tendons are depicted for the two reaction walls and the strong floor.
From Figure 4.14, one may observe that the anchorage heads of the floor tendons are
outside the area in plan of the floor itself. The available space had to be increased by
adding concrete blocks along the perimeter of the floor, in order to allow placement of
the vertical cables of the reaction walls. The dimensions of these added concrete blocks
are 2.40 m 2.40 m 0.80 m. From Figure 4.15 to Figure 4.18 the construction details of
the block types A, D, E and G are given. A grid of regularly placed holes had to be
designed in the walls and the floor for a fast and effective connection of structures and
loading devices. The grid is 0.60 m by 0.60 m for the overall structure.
In Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13 the anchorage points of the floor are shown: 40 mm highstrength (500 mm long) bars have been used. In the upper part of the bar there is an
anchorage nut or a sleeve; at the bottom, a square anchorage plate is placed and locked by
a nut. The orientation of the hollow precast blocks to allow placement of the vertical
cables of the walls is shown in Figure 4.10, with a specific view of the solid finite element
model.
90
Figure 4.10 Strong floor: directions of the hollow precast blocks
VIEW C
A-A' B
C
C-C'
A
VIEW C
B-B'
VIEW B
C'
B'
O
A' C'
C
A'
VIEW B
EUCENTRE
European Centre for Training and

Research in Earthquake Engineering
Universit degli Studi di Pavia

DIPARTIMENTO DI MECCANICA
STRUTTURALE
VIEW A
Figure 4.11 Full view of the PsD apparatus after the design of cable location
Via Ferrata, 1 - 27100 PAVIA

Tel. +39 0382 505468
Tel. +39 0382 505451
Fax. +39 0382 528422
E-mail eucentre@unipv.it
91
A-A'
24.180kN
24.180kN
24.180kN
24.180kN
24.180kN
24.180kN
24.180kN
11.440kN
11.440kN
11.440kN
11.440kN
11.440kN
11.440kN
3.900kN
7.800kN
7.800kN
7.800kN
7.800kN
11.440kN
Figure 4.12 Detailed view of the 14.4 m long wall: vertical and transversal cable locations
B-B'
3.900kN
7.800kN
7.800kN
7.800kN
7.800kN
11.440kN
11.440kN
11.440kN
11.440kN
11.440kN
Figure 4.13 Detailed view of 9.6 m long wall: vertical and transversal cable locations
92
C-C'
BOTTOM
TOP
Figure 4.14 Detailed view of the strong floor: horizontal cable locations
Figure 4.15 Block type A
Figure 4.16 Block Type D
Figure 4.17 Block Type E
93
Figure 4.18 Block Type G
4.5 DESIGN OF THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM

The system constituted by the strong floor and the reaction walls is so rigid that it could
rest directly on the soil without any foundation system but the vertical tendons of the
walls must be anchored. Within the cavities of the floor blocks there is not enough space
for the anchorage heads, so the proposed solution was to pass the vertical tendons down
to the bottom face of the strong floor. Therefore, it was necessary to create a foundation
system for the PsD apparatus. This foundation is constituted of several walls beneath the
floor, corresponding to the 2 legs of the L-shaped reaction walls. With reference to
Figure 4.3, under the 9.6 m long reaction wall five walls are required, under the 14.4 m
long reaction wall seven walls are required whose length has to be equal to or greater than
the 2.4 m thick reaction wall (Figure 4.19). The thickness of the sustaining walls is
determined by the free space left between the anchorage heads of two adjoining columns
of blocks. A main concrete plate, 9.6 m by 14.4 m, is directly in contact with the strong
floor and constitutes the bigger part of PsD foundation system. The 12 sustaining walls
are connected to this concrete plate and are in turn supported by a perimeter concrete
plate, one metre below the main plate. As seen in Figure 4.21, the main concrete plate is
connected rigidly to a retaining wall, 16.8 m long.
With reference to the FE mesh, the problem related to the complex foundation system is
the evaluation of its stiffness with respect to the strong floor and walls. The strong floor
is so rigid (due to its 2.4 m thickness and the post-tensioning cables) that one can expect
a rigid rotation of the overall system due to the asymmetric weight distribution (as
described in section 6.3.3). No deformations of the floor are expected. Due to the
presence of the 12 sustaining walls and the discontinuity between the two concrete
94
Figure 4.19 Schematically in plan view of the foundation system for the PsD apparatus
plates, the deformations of the overall system could be far from a rigid rotation. To
evaluate this phenomenon and to design the 12 sustaining walls in such a way not allow
deformations for the forces derived from the reaction walls, an iterative procedure was
required. This was because modelling such a complex sub-structure with the FE program
[Wardle and Fraser, 1975] to compute the foundation settlements was not
straightforward.
The evaluation of the vertical settlement of the floor and two reaction walls is described
in section 6.3.3. The total vertical load P is 32220 kN. Knowing the vertical
displacements, equivalent vertical springs were calibrated to provide the same vertical
settlement obtained for the strong floor. The effect of soil is contained in the calibrated
vertical springs. The foundation system was designed to obtain a rigid structure as the
strong floor. Therefore, the 12 foundation walls are 0.70 m thick and 1.0 m high. Their
length is so as to support the wall block and the added perimeter block, for a total of 3.20
m. The amount of reinforcement was computed taking into account the stresses derived
from the static analysis of the overall configuration subjected to the maximum forces
applicable to the reaction walls (those values are described in previous section).
95
Figure 4.20 Strong floor and foundation system: final configuration (SAP [Computer and
Structures, Inc., 1995])
96
Figure 4.21 View of the foundation system beneath the strong floor (finite element mesh
with SAP [Computer and Structures, Inc., 1995])
4.6 DESIGN REVISION HISTORY

The first design choice was related to the height of the walls. The wall height could vary
within a range of 12 and 15 m in order to test multi-storey structures. The size of the
strong floor could vary only in length, between 14.4 m and 16.8 m, since the width was
fixed as 12 m (see the structural layout choices, APPENDIX A).
The second choice was related to the shape of the precast blocks to be assembled. Two
possible shapes were considered: parallelepiped block or cubic hollow block. These
shapes were justified by the aim of having blocks with comparable weights but totally
different inertial stiffness. The first block was 2.4 m by 2.4 m by 1.2 m; its weight was
97
17.28 tonnes and its inertial stiffness, 0.346 m4. The investigated configuration (Figure
4.22) made by these blocks was characterized by:
A main 12 m high strong wall, 9.6 m by 2.4 m (40 precast concrete blocks, 691.2
tonnes),
A second 12 m high strong wall, 12 m by 1.2 m (25 precast concrete blocks, 432
tonnes),
The strong floor 14.4 m by 12 m, with a thickness of 1.2 m (30 precast concrete
blocks, 518.4 tonnes).
2,4
12
12
14,4
9,6
9,6
1,2 1,2
Figure 4.22 Initially investigated configuration of the PsD test apparatus: plan view
This configuration was studied evaluating its response (in terms of dimensions, stiffness
and deformations) according to the performance requirements of the testing facility.
The main difference between this configuration and the final one is the stiffness. The
latter is strongly stiffer than the former. The two configurations were comparable in
terms of the pressure on the underlying soil. In the first case the compressive stress on
soil due to the self-weight was 0.95 kg/cm2; in the latter case, the pressure was 1.09
kg/cm2. Hence, the main parameter that led to discard the configuration in Figure 4.22
was the lack of stiffness.
In order to quantify the deformability of this first configuration, FE analyses (Figure 4.23)
were performed with the same bridge piers described in Table 4.2. In Figure 4.25 and
Figure 4.26 the stress responses of the first configuration are shown when the acting
forces are applied to the shorter and longer walls, respectively. The displacement was of
the order of 2.77 cm at the top of the 1.2 m thick wall.
In terms of tensile stresses at the base of the walls, the FE analyses resulted in a stress of
48 kg/cm2 (Figure 4.25) for the 2.4 m thick wall, and 171 kg/cm2 (Figure 4.26) for the 1.2
m thick wall. From rough estimates the same values were obtained. For the 2.4 m tick
wall (Figure 4.24), the tensile stress was 48 or 42 kg/cm2. For the 1.2 m thick wall (Figure
4.24), the maximum tension was equal to 147 or 141 kg/cm2.
98
Figure 4.23 Initially investigated PsD structural configuration: 3D view
2,4
1,2
1,6
0,8
Figure 4.24 Approximate verification of the FE model results

Table 4.7 Performance checks of the initially investigated PsD
configuration
First studied configuration
(Figure 4.23)
shorter wall
0.443
Maximum
longer wall
2.77
displacement [cm]
strong floor
0.12
Maximum
shorter wall
47.95
tensile stress [kg cm-2] longer wall
170.84
Figure 4.25 Stress field for the shorter wall (9.6 m) of the 1st PsD configuration
Figure 4.26 Stress field for the longer wall (12 m) of the 1st PsD configuration
99
100
From the numerical results (Table 4.7), it can be observed that the first configuration was
not appropriate since the 12 m long wall was too flexible (its top displacement was almost
3 cm) and the tensile stress was unacceptable. There was no post-tensioning system able
to absorb this large stress without causing crushing of the concrete. And, finally, the
uplift of the floor was not negligible.
CHAPTER 5: ACTUATOR SYSTEM

In the following sections some details of the design solution for the EUCENTRE testing
facility are reported. The information presented in the sections 5.2 and 5.3 is with
reference to that supplied by MTS System Corporation [2004]. A brief description of the
piping system for the pressurized oil distribution is given. The information has been
supplied by Hydros s.r.l [2004].
5.1 APPLICATIONS OF EXTERNAL ACTIONS
During the set-up of an experimental investigation, engineers must make several
decisions related to the application of external actions. The first decision will stem from
the choice of test being performed; be it pseudo-static, pseudo-dynamic, or a fully
dynamic test. In the case of the pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic tests, the engineer
needs to select an appropriate type of jack or hydraulic actuator. If a fully dynamic
seismic investigation into the non-linear range is to be performed, then application of
external actions is currently limited to the use of shaking tables. Non-destructive dynamic
testing can be computed using ambient or small-amplitude forced vibrations. There are
important considerations to be given to the application of external actions, as described
in Sullivan et al. [2004]. Forces and displacements can be applied to a structure using one
of the following devices:
a) Screw jacks,
b) Flat jacks,
c) Hydraulic jacks,
d) Hydraulic actuators.
Consideration should be given to the range of displacements and forces that must be
applied and these should be checked against the limits of the jacks and actuators available.
a) Screw jacks
Screw jacks incorporate a threaded shaft or gearing system that allows extension or
retraction of a bearing plate at the end of the jack. They are designed for both tensile and
compressive loads and will operate in any orientation or mounting position. They can be
flexibly configured, either be installed singly, in pairs, or as part of a multiple jack system.
The jacks can control both forces and displacements manually or by an electric, hydraulic
or pneumatic motor, however, an external transducer is required in order to apply
rotations. Further positive characteristics of screw jacks are that they have a wide range of
102
load capabilities, and variations in speed are available, according to the screw type and
gearing. However, as the jacks cannot apply loads and displacements at high velocity they
are currently limited to use in static types of tests. Manufacturers provide a wide range of
screw jacks with special features such as anti-rotation designs, anti backlash options and
other safety features.
b) Flat jacks
Flat-jacks are typically circular low flat units which are capable of exerting high-pressure
forces. They are used by the construction industry for a multitude of applications, such as
lifting heavy structures, transferring existing loads to temporary or permanent supports
and permanently preloading replacement bridge bearings. Due to their design, they are
only light in weight but require a minimal installation gap of just a few centimeters. In
typical seismic testing situations, flat-jacks are installed only temporarily. Flat-jacks
intended for temporary installation can be inflated using hydraulic or resin pumping
equipment. The flat-jacks should be inserted leaving ample clearance to allow for
shimming tight prior to inflation. Extraction devices can be attached to flat jacks with
steel plates to allow ease of removal upon completion of jacking. It is apparent that the
flat-jacks only allow application of pressure forces and therefore are suitable principally
for quasi-static testing without cycling. A typical application of flat jacks is in the
assessment of the compressive stresses in masonry walls.
c) Hydraulic jacks
Hydraulic jacks consist of a piston within which it is possible to inject or withdraw
viscous fluid at pressure. The pressure pushes the oil against the piston plate moving an
arm which is attached to the structure being acted upon. The hydraulic jacks can be
configured so that both tensile and compressive forces can be applied to a structure. The
force applied to the structure is simply the product of the oil pressure and the piston area.
Neglecting the compressibility of oil, the flow rate within the jack is given by the velocity
of the piston multiplied again by the section area of the piston and consequently it is
evident that the maximum flow rate of the hydraulic system limits the velocity of the
piston. To ensure long life of hydraulic jacks, installation of a high performance oil filter
unit within the hydraulic system is worthwhile as is the performance of regular
maintenance of the bearings and gaskets. To enable application of forces in both tensile
and compression, hydraulic jacks have been developed with the ability to inject oil from
both sides of the piston plate. The main limitation associated with the use of hydraulic
jacks in seismic engineering is that they do not allow quick control of the applied force,
and consequently they are best suited to static tests.
d) Hydraulic actuators
The forces are applied through hydraulic actuators which, differently from other testing
devices like hydraulic jacks, are able to quickly control the applied forces. This control is
achieved with servovalve that can inject oil and change the pressure within the cylinder of
the actuator very quickly. Actuators typically allow application of motions with frequency
Chapter 5: Actuator system
103
from 0 to 150 or 200 Hz. Because of the quick control and relatively high forces that can
be provided by hydraulic actuators, they are a very useful tool for dynamic seismic testing.
To ensure long life of hydraulic actuators, installation of a high performance oil filter unit
within the hydraulic system is worthwhile as is the performance of regular maintenance.
The actuators in shaking tables are generally quite long and thin because of the
requirements for long stroke and high velocity. This means that the actuators have some
axial flexibility and will have the potential for bending laterally like pin-ended struts. The
natural frequency of the axial mode of a normally proportioned actuator is generally high
(>100 Hz) while the natural frequency of the bending mode is likely to be lower
(generally 2 or 3 times higher than the natural frequency of the oil column). These
frequencies are relatively high in relation to the operating frequency of the table and
hence are, in general, unlikely to be particularly significant.
Of all the possible resonances that can be introduced into a shaking table, the most
important is probably the oil column resonance [Clark, 1992]. This is because it is likely to
have a low frequency, often well within the operating range of the shaking table, and is
unlikely to be highly damped. The natural frequency of the oil column in any actuator can
be calculated from:
f =
1
KA
2
Lm
(5.1)
where:
f = natural frequency of the oil column (Hz),
K = bulk modulus of the hydraulic oil (N/m2),
A = effective cross sectional area of the oil column in the actuator (m2),
L = length of the oil column (m),
m = effective mass of the platform and specimen being excited by the actuator (kg).
The effect of this temperature dependence can be seen in the table below where the
changing bulk modulus causes the natural frequency of an oil column to change by 12%
over a range of 30C. This change in natural frequency of the system may be of particular
importance if, during a test the oil temperature rises and the natural frequency of the oil
column drops closer to a natural frequency of the specimen being tested. Not only do the
dynamic characteristics of the table change but also the possibility of table-specimen
interaction becomes more likely. It should be noted that the bulk modulus of the oil is
temperature dependant and this should be taken into account when calculating the
natural frequency of the oil column.
104

Table 5.1 Dependency of oil column resonance on oil temperature
[Crewe, 1998]
Oil temperature [C] Bulk modulus [N/m2] Natural frequency
18.720
10
2.272 109
18.025
20
2.110 109
9
17.326
30
1.947 10
9
16.590
40
1.785 10
9
14.239
100
1.315 10
To perform dynamic and pseudo-dynamic tests hydraulic actuators are used. Hydraulic
actuators have been designed by the manufacturers, MTS System Corporation, to meet
the performance requirements of a powerful dynamic and pseudo-dynamic facility at the
EUCENTRE laboratory. The MTS System Corporation designed a special and unique
piece as the hydraulic actuator of the shaking table whereas for the PsD apparatus,
standard devices have been chosen.
5.2 ACTUATOR SYSTEM OF THE SHAKING TABLE
For the EUCENTRE shaking table, the longitudinal hydraulic actuator is provided by
MTS System Corporation, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The high-performance actuator (type
244) has a dynamic capacity of 1700 kN (at 280 bar supply pressure) and a static
capacity of 2116 kN. The total dynamic stroke is equal to 1000 mm ( 500 mm); the
total static stroke is 1152.4 mm. The fatigue-rated actuator assembly includes the
following:
Hollow single-piece rod.
Dual (qty-2) Model 256.80 three-stage sleeve type servovalve rated at 3000 l/min (70
bar pressure drop. Higher flows at corresponding higher pressures). Each valve has
252.43 type pilot valve.
Linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT): type stroke transducer.
Close-coupled pressure and return accumulators, 200 litres for pressure, and 100 litres
for return.
Differential pressure cells
Hydraulic cushions sized for 85 tonnes mass (table+specimen)
Low-friction hydrostatic rod bearings
Refer to performance curve for actuator performance data (Figure 5.1):
Based on the specifications of the servo-hydraulic components described as follows, the
performance curves of the EUCENTRE shaking table in a tripartite plot are shown in
Figure 5.1. Table performance envelopes for a bare table condition and a table loaded
with a 60 tonnes (Mton in the plot) payload are provided. These performance curves were
generated based on the final design platform weight of 32.90 tonnes. Figure 5.1 also
shows that the maximum acceleration input of the EUCENTRE shaking table is a
function of the vertical payload on the table. For a bare table the performance curve
indicates an acceleration in excess of 5.0g, which tends to reduce with the increase of
105
payload. For a 60 tonnes payload, the maximum acceleration is expected to be 1.8g. From
Figure 5.1, the peak acceleration of 1.8g is related to a response frequency of 1.1 Hz. This
value represents the starting point at which the performance of the actuator reaches
maximum.
Figure 5.1 Performance curves for the hydraulic actuator
MTS also offers the shared console digital control system for the uniaxial table system to
be constructed by the EUCENTRE Laboratory. MTS 249 Digital Control system will
provide for shaking tuning, system operation, and test execution sharing an electronic
console with 3-channel structural system. An additional Real-Time Workshop Power PC
is installed in the electronic console for the EUCENTRE control system development
for table control. The additional table control hardware includes:
2431 Power PC and additional Ethernet connection;
Table actuator system cables;
System accelerometers (qty-2).
The Real Time Control Software for the uni-axial shaking table is described in the
information supplied by MTS System Corporation [2004]. The control software includes
data display and additional functions.
106
Figure 5.2 Hydraulic actuator assembly by MTS System Corporation [2004]
Figure 5.3 Cylinder assembly by MTS System Corporation [2004]
107
108
As shown in Figure 5.2, the actuator specifications are:

A piston area of 786.9 cm2,
Rod diameter of 304.8 mm,
A dynamic stroke of 1000 mm,
A static stroke of 1152.4 mm,
Cushions 76.2 mm (both ends),
Static force rating 2116 kN
Maximum cushion impact force of 5700 kN.
Its minimum and maximum dynamic strokes are 3750 mm and 4750 mm, respectively. Its
minimum and maximum static strokes are 3673.8 mm and 4826.2 mm. The mid stroke is
4250 mm. During the design steps of the shaking table, the possibility of adding a second
actuator was taken into account increasing the maximum dynamic force up to 3200 kN.
During the design of the isolation system, this was taken into account. At the final design
phase, the second actuator was not considered since it could be too demanding for the
overall dynamic system.
MTS Minneapolis would be responsible for the mounting and alignment of the actuator
with the table. Hydraulic and table/bearing installation must be completed prior to final
actuator alignment. The alignment is a very crucial problem since it can influence the
entire functioning of the dynamic testing facility. The actuator must be aligned with the
table and with the hydrostatic bearings (Figure 3.15). The contact area has to be worked
out by the table manufacturer such that the surface would be plane with a tolerance of
0.05 mm.
The optimum functioning of the actuator is guaranteed also by the exact orthogonality
between the actuator axis and the contact plates. The tolerance must be verified for both
ends of the actuator. For this reason, Tecno-cut [2004] proposed an alternative solution
for connection and alignment of the actuators with its interfaces. In Figure 5.4, the
external frame proposed by Tecno-cut is schematically depicted with the two views of the
connection of both actuator ends with the reaction mass and the shaking table. The
actuator is not directly connected to the concrete of the reaction mass but to a 100 mm
tick steel plate, which allows distribution of the cushion force as recommended by MTS
System Corporation [2004]. The maximum cushion force is 5700 kN (by MTS
specification). Using a safety coefficient (equal to 1.4), a design cushion force of 8000 kN
was considered. To absorb this tensile force, 12 high-strength 40 mm bars are located
along the boundary of the square (1200 mm by 1200 mm) steel plate.
The compressive stress derived from the design cushion force is 55.56 kg/cm2. A
schematic view of the interface plate is in Figure 5.5, where the spacing of the high
strength bars as well as the trace of the actuator diameter (850 mm), are depicted.
109
Sec.1
Sec.1: actuator-reaction mass
Sec.2
Sec.2: actuator-shaking table
Figure 5.4 Actuator interfaces by Tecno-cut [2004]
Figure 5.5 Square steel plate at the interface reaction mass/actuator
110
Figure 5.6 Actuator interfaces by MTS System Corporation [2004]
111
5.3 ACTUATOR SYSTEM OF THE PSD FACILITY

For the pseudo-dynamic and structural test system, the MTS System Corporation
provided three quasi-static structural actuator assemblies, one high-performance
structural actuator assembly and one fatigue-rated structural actuator assembly, the
electronic control system and the hydraulic distribution system. The calibration of all the
actuators would be performed at MTS System Corporation.
The quasi-static structural actuator assemblies are recommended for static or low cycle
fatigue applications. They are characterized by a rated force capacity of 291 kN in tension
and 496 kN in compression. They are single-ended (piston rod extends from the front
end of the unequal area piston) and double acting (hydraulic pressure on both sides of the
unequal area piston). They are characterized by full stroke coaxially mounted
Temposonics III SSI displacement transducer, high-quality, non-metallic bearings provide
long-life and resist bearing-to-rod galling failures. Their double amplitude displacement is
750 mm (single amplitude: 375 mm). The swivel base and the swivel head assembly
characteristics are summarized in Table 5.2. Six servovalves are needed with a rated flow
capacity of 56 l/min each one. Three axial load cells of 500 kN are required.
Table 5.2 Quasi-static and fatigue-rated structural actuator characteristics
Dynamic force capacity : 500 kN
Static force capacity
: 750 kN
Mounting pattern
: 241.3 mm square with 33.3 mm diameter clearance holes
Swivel angle
: + 90 degrees, - 30 degrees
Tilt angle
: 6 degrees
Adjustable bearing clearance to minimize backlash
For use on cyclic, reversing load applications
The high performance structural actuator assembly consists of one linear hydraulic
actuator and an axial load cell. The linear hydraulic actuator is recommended for dynamic,
static and fatigue applications. The rated force capacity of the linear hydraulic actuator
is 1000 kN. They are double ended (piston rod extends form both sides of the equal
area piston), double acting (hydraulic pressure on both sides of the equal area piston) and
have a full stroke coaxially mounted LVDT displacement transducer. High quality, nonmetallic bearings provide long life and resist bearing-to-rod galling failures. The double
amplitude displacement is 500 mm (single amplitude: 250 mm). The swivel base and
the swivel head assembly characteristics are summarized in Table 5.3. For the servovalve
manifold assembly, an MTS model 256.25 servovalve manifold assembly rated for 950
l/min is required. Four litre close coupled pressure and return accumulators would be
included. This servovalve assembly requires two sets of 2 inch SAE 4 bolt flange hoses
for maximum performance. It includes special porting and hydraulic cushions in the
cylinder assembly for higher flows. It includes differential pressure transducer for
stabilization. The actuator would be designed and manufactured with two sets of
112
servovalve manifold ports on opposing sides of the actuator. One set would be used for
the 256.25 servovalve manifold assembly. The other set would be covered. One axial load
cell with a dynamic force capacity of 1000 kN is provided.
The fatigue-rated structural actuator assembly is recommended for dynamic, static and
fatigue applications. The linear hydraulic actuator is characterized by a rated force
capacity of 500 kN. It is characterized by double ended (piston rod extends form both
sides of the equal area piston). It is double acting (hydraulic pressure on both sides of the
equal area piston). Full stroke coaxially mounted LVDT displacement transducer is
provided. High quality, non-metallic bearings provide long life and resist bearing-to-rod
galling failures. The double amplitude displacement is 500 mm (single amplitude: 250
mm). The swivel base and the swivel head assembly characteristics are summarized in
Table 5.2. Lifting shackles are configured for balanced lifting of actuator assembly.
Rubber rest pads prevent damage to actuator when not in use. Prior to shipment,
mechanical connections between the actuator piston rod, load cell and/or swivel head
would be preloaded to provide backlash-free connections. Two numbers of servovalves
are required with a rated flow capacity of 56 l/min. One axial load cell of 500 kN is
provided.
Table 5.3 High-performance actuator characteristics
Dynamic force capacity : 1000 kN
Swivel angle
: +90 degrees, -30 degrees
Tilt angle
: 8 degrees
Adjustable bearing clearance to minimize backlash
For use on cyclic, reversing load applications
FlexTest GT Controller with six channels and six stations, supplied by MTS System
Corporation is the electronic control system.
5.4 GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRESSURIZED OIL
The flow required for the actuation system is guaranteed by means of the hydraulic
distribution system designed by Hydros s.r.l. [2004]. The reservoir has a capacity of 6000
litres. Height pumps with a total flow of 1360 l/min and five accumulators providing
3000 litres are the main components of the hydraulic network. The operational pressure
is 21/28 MPa. The total electric power is 800 kW those main contributions are 720 kW
for the 8 electric motors of the main pumps, 50 kW for the 2 refrigerators and 18.5 kW
for the electric pump of the auxiliary group controlling servovalve refrigeration and
driving mechanism.
The flow rate for the shaking table is 1360 l/min. The continuous flow to the actuators
for the PsD apparatus is 1360 l/min, while the peak flow is 1500 l/min for 1 minute or
113
3000 l for 14 seconds (without the contribution of the accumulators on the vertical arms
and at 21 MPa). Oil filtering and refrigeration are obtained by passing the fluid returning
to the tank by means of two stainless steel high-yield plate oil/water type heat exchangers,
and through return filter. The exchanger is able to dissipate 50000 kcal/h with a water
flow of 160 l/min at 15C.
Stainless steel pipes for outflow, return and drainage compose the hydraulic distribution
network. The distribution is achieved by means of a single line 4 for outflow and 4 for
return dedicated to the PsD apparatus operation. For the shaking table two different lines
have been designed 4 for outflow and 5 return.
Qualified personnel holding welders license performed the welding of the pipes, curves
and flanges. Particular care has been taken to the welding control on the pressure and
return lines, which have been integrally tested with penetrating liquid and radiographies.
After oil washing and flushing phases, the leak tests on all the pipelines were performed
to verify that there is no pressure reduction after 8 hours. The required test pressures are
31.5 MPa for outflow, 3 MPa for return and 2 MPa for drainage [Hydros s.r.l., 2004]. The
pipelines for the outflow, the return and the drainage are shown in Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.7 Piping system for the EUCENTRE laboratory [Hydros s.r.l., 2004]
CHAPTER 6: SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

This chapter is devoted to the soil-structure interaction problem. The definition of the
dynamic properties of the foundation soil is given. The evaluation of the static vertical
settlement of both the shaking table and the PsD apparatus is presented. A description of
the dynamic soil-foundation structure interaction due to the excitations of the shaking
table then follows.
6.1 ASPECTS OF SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION INVESTIGATIONS
A good design of a testing facility has to consider all the aspects and phenomena related
to the interaction of the facility with the soil. Hence, it is important to know exactly the
present conditions of the soil, its material composition, layering, trend of its mechanical
parameters like the shear wave velocity and the Poissons ratio (Section 6.2). The initial
computation consists of the evaluation of the vertical settlement due to the static load
condition. The evaluation of vertical displacements is important since it can influence the
behaviour of the overall facility. If differential displacements can exist, the stationary
condition of the facility is influenced. The presence of asymmetric configurations causes
these differential displacements.
For the shaking table (section 6.3.2), the reaction mass-table-specimen system constitutes
a non-equilibrated structure due to the eccentric position of the table (with respect to the
reaction mass centre of gravity), and of the specimen (due to its own configuration). The
vertical loads can be transmitted either directly to the foundation system (if the reaction
mass rests directly on the foundation) or through the isolation system at the foundation.
In the first case, the stiffness of the reaction mass should be large enough to cause a rigid
rotation of the foundation, which, in turn, has to be a rigid structure. In the second case,
the isolation system does not allow a uniform load distribution: there are as many lumped
loads as the number of isolators. Obviously the isolation system has to be designed to
balance the effect of the unbalanced mass distribution and of the overturning moment
(even if the latter has its influence only in the dynamic field). It is clear that the presence
of possible differential displacements causes significant problems for the stability and the
operation of the shaking table, the actuation system, and the hydrostatic bearings whose
required accuracy is high.
For the pseudo-dynamic facility (section 6.3.3) the presence of differential displacements
has to be taken into account for a correct working of the facility. The advantage of the
116
PsD apparatus with respect to the shaking table is that the strong walls and floor
represent a very stiff system whose weight is transmitted to the foundation/soil through a
thick floor. The load distribution in the PsD apparatus is not balanced due to asymmetric
positioning of the reaction walls with respect to the strong floor. Due to the stiffness of
the strong floor, the asymmetric configuration could cause a rigid rotation of the
basement. The amount of those displacements must be quantified in long and short-term
situations. And the foundation system must be stiff enough not to deform as a
consequence of the transmitted forces, if it exists.
After the evaluation of response under the dead loads and the self-weight of the facility, a
more refined study of the dynamic soil-structure interaction problem must be performed
to predict the ground motion induced by the excitation of the shaking table (section
6.4.2). Further, it is important to estimate the liquefaction susceptibility of the soil as a
function of the acceleration transmitted through the foundation. If the liquefaction
potential exists, solutions to improve the soil behaviour are required to prevent the
collapse of the entire testing facility. Also the possibility of settlement of saturated sands
must be taken into account and quantified as a function of the transmitted acceleration.
An accurate study of the dynamic interaction between shaking table and underlying soil
has been performed. The amplification of accelerations and displacements transmitted to
the reaction mass/foundation/soil corresponding to the isolator resonance frequency led
to discarding the airbags. No base isolation has been designed to mitigate the vibration
impact induced by the experimental simulations. The results of the study performed to
optimize the reaction mass/foundation design are described in section 6.4.1, derived
from Pavese et al. [2005].
6.2 DEFINITION OF DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF FOUNDATION SOIL
In the area of study, the following geotechnical investigation campaign was performed:
Two boreholes (BH01 and BH02) until 25 m depth. A standard penetration test (SPT)
every 1.5 m was performed in one borehole. In the second borehole a open wall
piezometre was used to determine the water table level;
One seismic cross-hole test (CH1) until 25 m depth. This test was carried out to
determine the profiles of shear wave velocity, Vs, and dilatational wave velocity, Vp,
with depth.
The results of the SPT test are depicted in Figure 6.1. The segmented line represents a
precautionary estimate of the blow/foot NSPT with the depth. The values of the SPT test
show a variation of 10 blow/foot until 14 m in depth. Beyond this there is an increase of
NSPT until 37 blow/foot at 20 m in depth. During boring, several specimens have been
taken for laboratory tests, like granulometric tests, classification tests, measurements of
the volume weight and of the amount of natural water. On the undisturbed samples,
taken within the cohesive material layers, endometric and triaxial tests were carried out.
117
Chapter 6: Soil-structure interaction
NSPT [blow/foot]
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
SPT-BH1
SPT-BH2
Depth [m]
10
Precautionary
cautelative
estimate
estimate
15
20
25
30
Figure 6.1 Blow/foot values from the standard penetration tests
With the SPT data, it is possible to obtain a first gross evaluation the Vs profile using the
empirical correlation of Ohta and Goto [1978]:
(6.1)
Vs = 54.33 ( N SPT )0.173 ( z / 0.303 )0.193 f A f G
where NSPT and z are listed in Table 6.1, and the coefficient fA and fG are equal 1.00 and
1.09, respectively. Using this empirical correlation, the derived Vs profile is shown in
Figure 6.2.
Table 6.1 Vs with NSPT values: from BH01 on the left and BH02 on the right
z
NSPT
VS
NSPT
VS
[m]
[blow/foot]
[m/s]
[m]
[blow/foot]
[m/s]
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
7.5
9.0
10.5
12.0
13.5
15.0
16.5
18.0
19.5
21.0
22.5
24.0
14
11
9
12
12
9
16
7
4
24
20
36
18
41
32
39
127
140
146
162
169
167
190
169
157
218
215
242
218
255
248
260
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
7.0
9.0
10.5
12.0
13.5
15.0
16.5
18.0
19.5
21.0
22.5
24.0
10
11
9
10
10
8
13
7
18
20
22
41
22
53
37
39
120
140
146
157
162
163
183
169
203
211
219
248
226
267
254
260
118

VS [m/s]
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Depth [m]
10
15
20
25
SPT-BH1
SPT-BH2
30
Figure 6.2 Shear wave velocity profile from the SPT tests
The direct measurement of the shear velocity was derived from the seismic cross-hole
test (CHT), the results of which are plotted in Figure 6.3. The variation of P wave
velocity and Poissons ratio gives the position of the water table at 5 m depth (starting
from 82.2 metre sea-level that is the borehole zero level). The shear wave velocities are in
a range of 250-290 m/s for the first 4 m in depth, and then there is a decrease to 180-210
m/s until 9 m. On increasing the depth, Vs increases up to 270-370 m/s.
The values of wave velocities, derived from the CHT, are characterized by a high
uncertainty, which is quantified by the standard deviations. The uncertainty related to the
Vs profile is shown in Figure 6.4(a). It is noteworthy that the Vs profile derived from the
empirical correlation of Otha and Goto (Figure 6.2) differs significantly from the directly
measured CHT values, particularly for what concerns the fisrt 10-15 m of depth; this is as
expected since the empirical correlation was initially employed with the objective of
providing a first crude estimate of the variation of Vs with depth.
Due to the low SPT blow/foot values until 14 m in depth (Figure 6.1) and the high
uncertainty related to the CHT results until 10 m in depth (Figure 6.4a), a precautionary
estimate of the Vs profile has been assumed as design profile for the evaluation of the
static vertical settlement (Figure 6.4b). The design profile has been derived from the
lower bound estimate of the CHT results. A furher reduction of the shear velocities has
been assumed up to 5 m in depth taking into account the high standard deviation values
(shown, with the CHT results, in Figure 6.4b) and the 10 blow/foots of the SPT tests.
119
Depth [m]
Vs [m/s]
Figure 6.3 Profiles of P and S wave velocities (left). Poissons ratio profile with depth (right)
6.3 STATIC VERTICAL SETTLEMENT

The computation of the vertical settlement due to the self-weight and the permanent
loads of the facility is important since it can influence the optimum performance of the
testing facility itself.
6.3.1 Theoretical background
The vertical settlements are computed for comparison with different procedures such as
the Boussinesqs theoretical formulation [Lancellotta, 1987; Braja 1998], the empirical
formula of Burland and Burbidge [Lancellotta, 1987], the finite element program
FOCALS [Wardle et al., 1975]. A brief explanation of the methodology used is given in
the following sections.
1. Boussinesqs theoretical formulation
Boussinesq was the first to propose solutions for the computation of the stresses within a
homogeneous medium due to external loads. Boussinesq solved the problem of stresses
produced at any point in a homogeneous, elastic, and isotropic medium as the result of a
point load applied on the surface of a half-space. Foster and Ahlvin in 1954 [Lancellotta,
1987] found the trend of the vertical stress due to a load distributed on a circular area.
120

Vs [m/s]
Vs [m/s]
Depth [m]
150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400
10
10
15
15
20
20
CHT results
25
CHT
results
25
Precautionary
estimate
30
30
Figure 6.4 Experimental Vs profile with the standard deviation values with depth. On the
right hand side, the Vs precautionary design profile for static loading conditions is shown
The Boussinesqs solution is accurate for a homogeneous, elastic, and isotropic medium,
and for infinitely flexible foundations. Even if these assumptions are far from the real
application, they can be used to quantify the settlements and compare them with the
solutions of a FE program.
The soil properties are defined by means of the Vs profile with depth (Figure 6.4b), the
density (a mean value), the coefficient of earth pressure at rest Ko, the plasticity index
PI, and the Poissons ratio (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2 Soil properties
1.9
(Mg/m3)
Ko
0.5
PI
0.2*
* for
drained soil condition;

0.5 for undrained soil condition
121
NUMBERS IN
REFER TO THE
RATIO r/R
Figure 6.5 Vertical stress due to load acting on a circular area: Foster and Ahlvins
solution [Lancellotta, 1987]. Circled numbers refer to the ratio r/R
To apply the Foster and Ahlvins solution, an equivalent diameter D of load area must be
defined, loaded by an equivalent uniform pressure q. Knowing the soil properties (Table
6.2) and the Vs profile (Figure 6.4b)), the maximum shear modulus Gmax is computed as:
Gmax = Vs2
(6.2)
and the shear modulus G is related to the Youngs modulus E by the following
fundamental equation:
G=
E
2 (1 + )
(6.3)
Hence, each soil layer is characterized by its Gmax value. Since the soil should be subjected
to large deformations due to the high external applied loads, a degradation of the shear
modulus must be taken into account. A reduced shear modulus G() is computed as a
function of the cyclic shear strain amplitude , plasticity index (Table 6.2), and mean
confining pressure o (Figure 6.6).
122
Figure 6.6 Influence of mean effective confining pressure on modulus reduction curves
for non-plastic soils [Kramer, 1996]
The total vertical settlement S is found integrating the vertical deformation z (z ) :
S = z ( z )dz =
0
z ( x + y )
dz
E
(6.4)
where:
z = f (z , q , D , , E ) is the variation of vertical stresses and
x = y = g ( z , q , D , , E ) is the variation of the horizontal stresses.
An approximate solution of Eq. (6.4) is obtained by a summation of the infinitesimal

contributions (Eq. (6.5)) and the final result is closer to the exact solution, larger is the
number of i infinitesimal contributions.
S = z ( z )dz
0
zi
z i )
(6.5)
i =0
To take into account the stress distribution within the soil, a depth of 2.5 times the
foundation width has been considered. Hence, total settlement is given by the summation
of i infinitesimal layers to a depth of 2.5B (for a precautionary estimate), which is equal to
42 m [Das, 1998; Lancellotta, 1987] for both shaking table and PsD foundations. The soil
properties have been assumed constant between 25 m and 42 m.
Knowing and o for each i layer, the percentage of reduction of the maximum shear
modulus Gmax is determined from Figure 6.6, as well as the Youngs modulus E. A further
iteration is needed since the deformation and, consequently, the vertical settlement must
be computed as a function of the reduced shear modulus G(), so equation (6.5) has to be
updated.
123
Different soil situations are considered: drained and undrained soil. The former
represents a long-term situation, the latter a short-term situation. It is important for the
computation of the vertical settlement of the soil under the facility to determine the
amount of immediate vertical deformation and displacement. If the results are too high, a
preloaded condition has to be recommended for the soil. Therefore, the computation of
the vertical settlement is carried out for the drained soil condition first. Then for the
short-term situation, the clay layers must be characterized by undrained parameters (Eu
and u , later defined). For drained soil condition, ten main layers have been considered.
Each main layer is subdivided into infinitesimal i layers for the approximate solution of
the equation (6.5).
For undrained soil condition, the layer subdivision was refined with respect to the one
proposed for the long-term condition. This is required to take into account the clay layers
whose locations are derived from the boreholes BH01 and BH02, and cross-hole test
CH1 (Table 6.3). Fourteen main layers have been considered. Also in the case, each main
layer is subdivided into infinitesimal i layers for the approximated resolution of the
equation (6.5).
Table 6.3 Clay layer locations from boreholes and cross-hole test
From BH01
From BH02
From CH1
Assumed subdivision
8.00-9.00 m
8.90-9.15 m
8.20-11.00 m
8.00-11.00 m
10.00-10.50 m 10.00-10.50 m 14.60-16.30 m
14.60-16.30 m
14.80-16.30 m 15.35-15.70 m 19.50-20.60 m
19.50-21.00 m
20.30-20.75 m 20.00-20.30 m
For cohesive layers one assumes that the undrained parameters, such as the shear
modulus GU and the elasticity modulus EU, are related to the drained ones by the
following equations:
G() = GU and EU = [(1+ U)/(1+ )] E
(6.6)
The undrained Poissons ratio U was taken equal to 0.5, while the drained one was equal
to 0.2. Therefore, the ratio EU/E becomes 6/5. For the undrained soil condition, the
reduction of the shear modulus Gmax has to be computed taking into account U in the
expressions of h' , o and . With the new percentages of reduction of Gmax, derived
from Kramer [1996], the elasticity modulus E was computed and consequently the
undrained elastic modulus EU for the clay layers, using Eq. (6.6). Also for short-term soil
condition, the vertical settlement is computed through iterative procedures using Gmax as
first step and using the reduced G as second step.
The computations with Boussinesqs solution provide an approximate estimate of the
amount of vertical settlement since the assumptions for its validity (homogeneous, elastic
124
and isotropic medium) are not respected and the foundation stiffness is not taken into
account.
Burland and Burbidges empirical formula
A second procedure to estimate the foundation settlement of non-cohesive materials is
the Burland and Burbidge method [Lancellotta, 1987]. The method is based on statistic
analysis of more than 200 real cases, including foundations with dimensions in a range
from 0.80 m to 135 m. In the most general case, the equation for the computation of the
settlement is given by:
2.
S = f S f H f t vo' B 0.7 I C / 3 + q ' vo' B 0.7 I C
(6.7)
where:
q ' = the effective pressure, in kPa;
vo' = the vertical effective stress at the ground level of the foundation, in kPa;
B = the width of the foundation, in m;
IC = the compressibility index;
fS, fH, ft = correction coefficients taking into account the shape, the thickness of the
compressible layer, and of the viscous component of the settlement, respectively.
The values obtained from Eq. (6.7) are in millimetres. The first term within the square
bracket represents the contribution due to the recompression of the soil up to vo' . The
second term represents the compression due to the amount of pressure greater than the
existing vo' . The compressibility index is statistically related to the NSPT values
[Lancellotta, 1987] and the mean value of the compressibility index is given by:
IC =
1.706
.4
N 1AV
(6.8)
and NAV is the average of the NSPT values within a significant depth derived from Table
6.4, when the NSPT are increasing or constant with depth. If the NSPT decreases with
depth, the average NAV must be computed with a depth equal to 2B.
Table 6.4 Significant depth values as a function of the width B of the
foundation [Lancellotta, 1987]
zi [m] B [m]
1.63
2
2.19
3
3.24
5
5.56
10
13.00
30
19.86
50
34.00
100
125
3. Finite element simulation with FOCALS [Wardle et al., 1975]

A more accurate evaluation of the vertical settlement of the soil under the facility was
obtained using a finite element program FOCALS. The input file consists of the
definition of:
The properties of the foundation system in terms of Youngs modulus and Poissons
ratio (for isotropic material), mass density, element thickness, distributed lateral load.
The properties of the soil in terms of number of layer, thickness, elastic modulus and
Poissons ratio (for isotropic material) of each layer.
The load cases and combinations.
To check the finite element model created, the following steps were always performed:
Computation of the vertical settlements due to the soil deformation only, assuming an
infinitely flexible foundation system. The results of this step have been compared with
those derived from the implementation of the Boussinesqs formulation.
Computation of the vertical settlements due to soil and foundation deformations. An
iterative procedure was needed to take into account the stiffness of the superstructure.
In both the previous phases, drained and undrained soil conditions have been studied
separately. Using FOCALS, it was possible to represent the soil behaviour in a refined
way but not a complex superstructure like the PsD testing facility. In fact, the foundation
(section 4.5) was modelled by different structural elements (two plates at different depth,
12 small walls, a retaining wall, etc.). Due to the difficulty involved in the modelling,
FOCALS was used to simulate the soil conditions in an accurate way for simplified
foundation geometry. A structural finite element program, SAP2000 (Computer and
Structures, Inc. [1995]), has been used to model the whole foundation system on springs.
These springs represented the underlying soil and their characteristics were derived from
results of FOCALS analyses.
6.3.2 Static vertical settlement due to the shaking table weight
For the shaking table facility, the crucial point was the soil-structure interaction from a
dynamic point of view. The computation of the vertical settlement due to the dead load
distribution in static condition was also useful. This helped in understanding if the mass
system was distributed uniformly and if the foundation system was stiff enough to avoid
unacceptable deformations for the applied loads. The stability and the optimum operation
of the dynamic facility are influenced by static differential displacements. They must be
quantified and reduced as much as possible increasing the stiffness of the foundation.
In this section, the vertical settlement due to static load conditions is computed for the
final configuration of the reaction mass (Figure 3.18) which lies directly on the soil. For
completeness, the vertical settlements of the discarded reaction mass configurations
(section 3.4.2) are briefly introduced. The complete calculations can be found in Ceresa
[2004]. Here, a summary is required to evaluate the problems due to the non-uniform
mass distribution and the stiffness discontinuity due to the presence of the airbags. The
126
solution of these problems determined the final choice of the reaction mass/foundation
configuration.
With Boussinesqs formulation:
Considering the final configuration of the reaction mass (Figure 3.18), the vertical
settlement had to be computed taking into account the foundation depth and the load
distribution. The computation was performed initially using the Boussinesqs formulation
for the drained and undrained soil conditions. In Table 6.5, the geometry and the dead
loads of the final solution are summarized, where A and B are the foundation
dimensions, D is the diameter of the equivalent circular area, P the total vertical load, q
the uniform pressure on the circular area, and Zf the depth of the foundation with respect
to the boreholes zero level (82.2 metres sea-level). From the boreholes, standard
penetration test and cross-hole results the first 5.50 m were neglected. The total vertical
load P comes from the 2222 tonnes reaction mass, the 32.90 tonnes shaking table and the
60 tonnes specimen. Ten main layers were considered (Table 6.6) in long-term soil
condition as described in the section 6.3. For the undrainded soil condition, 14 layers
were considered (Table 6.7) localizing the clay layers as listed in Table 6.3.
Table 6.5 Shaking table foundation: geometry and loads
A [m] 7.20
B [m]
16.80
D [m]
12.41
P [kN] 23170
q [kPa] 191.55
Zf [m]
5.50
Table 6.6 Drained soil condition: soil properties, for shaking table
foundation
Gmax
No. of
Depth
Thickness
Vs
G()
E'
[m/s] [MPa] [MPa] [kPa]
main layer
[m]
[m]
1
5.5 - 6
0.50
175
58
17
41895
2
6 - 10
4.00
175
58
21
50833
3
10 - 11
1.00
275
144
73
175874
4
11 - 13
2.00
270
139
84
202779
5
13 - 15
2.00
270
139
93
222724
6
15 - 19.50
4.50
340
220
174
418177
7
19.50 - 21
1.50
290
160
134
322137
8
21 - 24
3.00
310
183
153
368101
9
24 - 25
1.00
330
207
176
422096
10
25 - 42
17.00
330
207
203
486652
127
Table 6.7 Undrained soil condition: soil properties, for shaking table
foundation
No. of
Depth
Thickness
Vs
EU
E'
main layer
[m]
[m]
[m/s] [kPa] [kPa]
1
5.5 - 6
0.50
175 41895
2
6-8
2.00
175 50833
3
8 - 10
2.00
175
101246
4
10 - 11
1.00
275
310365
5
11 - 13
2.00
270 202779
6
13 - 14.60
1.60
270 222724
7
14.60 - 15
0.40
270
322036
8
15 - 16.30
1.30
340
560082
9
16.30 - 19.50
3.20
340 418177
10
19.50 - 20
0.50
290
431433
11
20 - 21
1.00
290
450608
12
21 - 24
3.00
310 368101
13
24 - 25
1.00
330 422096
14
25 - 42
17.00
330 486652
A rough estimate of the total vertical settlement of the 42 m soil portion using
Boussinesqs formulation is:
If z ( ) is calculated as a function of maximum shear modulus Gmax, the vertical
settlement is S = 8.09 mm for short-term soil condition and 6.43 mm for long-term
soil condition;
If z ( ) is calculated as a function of reduced shear modulus G( ), the vertical
settlement is S = 17.57 mm for short-term soil condition and 12.61 mm for long-term
soil condition.
With Burland and Burbidges method:
Appling the Burland and Burbidges method described in section 6.3, the vertical
settlement is greater than in the case Boussinesqs formulation i.e., 31.23 mm. The crude
estimation suggests that this value should be greater than the one found with an accurate
finite element analysis based on the Vs profile. In fact, the blow/foot values are very
small (Figure 6.110 blow/foot to 14 m depth), while the measured Vs values from the
cross-hole test are large particularly within the first 15 metres. This was the reason behind
the design Vs profile (Figure 6.4b) for static loading conditions.
With FOCALS:
A more accurate determination of the vertical settlement was carried out using the finite
element program FOCALS [Wardle and Fraser, 1975]. FOCALS is a DOS-based code
without graphical interfaces. The graphical representation of the results was achieved
using Matlab [The MathWorks, Inc., 2002].
128
The dead load effects are plotted in Figure 6.7 for the drained soil condition and in
Figure 6.8 for the undrained one. The maximum displacement is of the order of -0.0147
m for the drained condition. The deformation gradient along the foundation length is
negligible since the mass distribution is well balanced.
-0 .01 43
-0 .01 44
-0 .01 45
-0.01 46
1 47
-0 .0
-0.0144
-0.0145
-0.0143
-0.0146
-0.0147
Width [m]
8
10
Length [m]
12
-0 .01 43
-0 .01 44
-0 .01 45
-0.01 46
-0 .0
1 47
14
16
Figure 6.7 Vertical settlement [m] for dead load. Drained soil condition
07
075
-0 .01
-0 .01
085
095
1 08
-0 .0
-0 .01
1 09
-0 .0
105
-0 .01
-0 .01
1
-0 .0
-0.0107
-0.01075
-0.0108
-0.01085
-0.0109
-0.01095
-0.011
-0.01105
1 11
-0 .0
Width [m]
8
10
Length [m]
12
075
-0 .01
-0 .0
10
8
085
-0 .01
-0 .0
1 09
-0 .01
-0 .0
1 10
5
14
16
Figure 6.8 Vertical settlement [m] for dead load. Undrained soil condition
The deformations increase if the overturning moment (OTM) is considered. The OTM
value, statically applied, is the maximum absolute moment due to the dynamic loads of
shaking table and specimen. Considering a table weight of 33 tonnes, the maximum
dynamic actuator force (1700 kN), the peak acceleration (1.8g), the maximum height of
the specimen centre of gravity (4 m), the maximum OTM is 12743.2 kNm. The vertical
displacements due to the dead loads and the anticlockwise application of OTM are
plotted in Figure 6.9 and Figure 6.10, for the long- and short-term conditions of the soil.
The settlement reaches a maximum value of -0.017 m and the deformation gradient is of
the order of 0.004 m. The results confirmed that the reaction mass/foundation system is
sufficiently rigid. For the undrained soil, the maximum settlement reduces to -0.0125 m.
129
-0.0135
-0.0145
-0.013
-0.0145
-0.015
-0.014
-0.015
-0.0155
-0.0155
-0.016
-0.01 65
-0.01 7
-0.013
-0.014
-0.016
-0.0165
-0.017
-0.0135
Width [m]
-0.013
-0.014
-0.015
-0.016
-0.01 7
8
10
Length [m]
12
14
16
-0.011
-0.012
-0.0095
-0.01
-0.011
-0.0105
-0.011
-0.0115
-0.0125
-0.0115
-0.0115
force. Drained soil condition
-0.01
-0.0095
-0.0105
-0.012
4
-0.0125
Width [m]
8
10
Length [m]
12
-0.01
-0.012
-0.0105
14
16
force. Undrained soil condition
A brief summary of the results of the vertical settlements for the case of the discarded
configurations of the reaction mass (section 3.4.2) is given for completeness. The
negative effects (i) of an unbalanced mass distribution, (ii) of the discontinuity in stiffness
between reaction mass and foundation (due to the presence of airbags) and (iii) of the
flexibility of the foundation are shown. The first configuration considered is depicted in
Figure 3.20 supported by 64 air springs (248-2 model, as described in 3.5). The
foundation is a rectangular concrete block, whose size is 16.8 m by 7.2 m, and its depth
with respect to the borehole zero level (82.2 m sea-level) is 3.90 m. In order to reduce the
flexibility of the foundation its thickness was assumed equal to 80 cm. The vertical
displacements due to the dead loads are plotted in Figure 6.11. One can see a
concentration of vertical deformation corresponding to the front side of the reaction
block where the majority of the dead load is concentrated.
The second configuration considered was the symmetric reaction mass configuration
(Figure 6.19, on left) supported by 150 T29 air springs (section 3.5). Due to previously
130
-0
.01
05
-0 .00 65
05
1 05
-0 .0
-0 .00 65
-0.007
-0.008
-0.0075
-0.01
-0 .0
1
8
10
Length [m]
-0 .007
-0 .00 8
-0 .01
-0.00 9
Width [m]
-0 .00 75
-0 .00 7
-0.0085
-0 .00 8
-0.00 85
-0.0095
-0.009
-0 .00 9
-0 .01 05
-0 .00 95
-0 .01
12
14
16
configuration in Figure 3.20. Drained soil condition
-0 .
01
04
-0 .0
1
-0 .0
10
2
-0 .0
10
4
0 92
-0 .0 94
0
-0 .0 6
09
-0 .0 0 98
-0 .0
1
-0 .0
02
01
-0 .
-0 .0
0
-0 .0 92
-0 .0 0 94
0
-0 .0 96
0 98
discussed reasons (section 3.4), the reaction block geometry was changed to a symmetric
one. The vertical settlement for the loads transmitted by the air springs for the applied
load cases (i.e. dead loads, overturning moment) was computed. The drained and
undrained soil conditions were considered separately. The dead load effects are plotted in
Figure 6.12 for the drained soil condition. The symmetry of the loads influences the trend
of settlement i.e., a concentric circular area. The maximum vertical displacement is related
to the central part of the foundation and is about -0.0104 m. For the undrained soil
condition, the same calculations have been preformed. The vertical displacements are less
(in absolute value) with respect to the ones for the drained soil. The deformation gradient
is negligible in all considered load cases and this confirms the uniformity of mass
distribution and the large stiffness of the foundation. In addition, the large number of
isolators (150 instead of 64) contributes to distribute the applied load in a more uniform
way. The results of the dynamic soil-structure interaction led to the final choice of
connecting the reaction mass rigidly with the foundation, as explained in section 6.4.1.
-0.0098
-0.01
8
10
Length [m]
12
-0
-0 .0 .01
0 98
-0 .0
0 96
-0 .00
-0 .0
1 02
-0
.01
04
-0
.0
10
4
94
2
10
-0 .0
1
-0 .0
0 98
-0 .0 96
0
-0 .0 4
9
-0 .0092
-0 .00
-0.0096
-0.01
-0.01 02
-0.0104
-0.0104
-0.0102
-0.0098
-0.0096
Width [m]
14
16
configuration in Figure 6.19 (on left). Drained soil condition
131
6.3.3 Static vertical settlement due to PsD testing apparatus weight

In the case of the PsD facility foundation, the foundation was considered rectangular in
shape, 12 m by 16.8 m. In Table 6.8 the geometric characteristics of the foundation and
its loads are summarized. The boreholes and seismic cross-hole test were performed at
82.2 m sea level while the foundation is at 81.6 m sea level. The depth of the foundation
with respect to the ground surface is 0.60 m therefore one had to ignore the first 0.60 m
from the cross-hole and borehole test data.
With Boussinesqs formulation:

The soil is characterized by layer thickness, S wave velocity, G and E moduli for drained
and undrained conditions. For the long-term situation the properties of the 10 main
layers are summarized in Table 6.9. The undrained soil parameters are summarized in
Table 6.10.
A rough estimate of the total vertical settlement of the 42 m soil portion using
Boussinesqs formulation gives:
If z ( ) is calculated as a function of maximum shear modulus Gmax, the vertical
settlement is S = 10.76 mm for drained soil, and 10.03 mm for undrained soil;
If z ( ) is calculated as a function of reduced shear modulus G( ), the vertical
settlement is S = 39.55 mm for drained soil, and 18.75 mm for undrained soil.
The above computations provide an idea of the amount of vertical settlement that one
has to expect for the described soil conditions. It is clear that the procedure gives a crude
result since the assumptions for its validity are not respected and the foundation stiffness
is not taken into account.
With Burland and Burbidges method:
Appling this method, the vertical settlement is greater than in the case Boussinesqs
formulation i.e., 79.30 mm, representing only a crude estimation to be validated with the
more accurate results of a FE computer code.
With FOCALS:
A foundation of the same size of the strong floor was considered i.e., a plate 12 m by 16.8
m in plan. The soil deformation due to the applied load for drained and undrained soil
condition was initially studied. In Figure 6.13 and Figure 6.14 an infinitely flexible
foundation has been considered. The largest concentration of settlement is under the two
reaction walls. From these plots the varying mass distribution may be seen. The resultant
asymmetric distribution of the displacements (with respect to the diagonal axis) is due to
the different lengths of the two walls, as clearly shown in Figure 6.13. In reality, the
stiffness of the foundation contributes to a more uniform load distribution.
132

Table 6.8 PsD foundation: geometry and loads
A (m) 12.00
B (m)
16.80
D (m)
16.02
P (kN)
32220
q (KPa) 159.82
Zf (m)
0.60
Table 6.9 Drained soil condition: soil properties, for the PsD foundation
G()
Gmax
No. of
Depth
Thickness
Vs
E'
[m/s] [MPa] [MPa] [kPa]
main layer
[m]
[m]
1
0-6
6.00
175
58
12
27900
2
6 - 10
4.00
175
58
17
41895
3
10 - 11
1.00
275
144
57
137940
4
11 - 13
2.00
270
139
76
182833
5
13 - 15
2.00
270
139
111
265939
6
15 - 19.50
4.50
340
220
176
421709
7
19.50 - 21
1.50
290
160
134
322137
8
21 - 24
3.00
310
183
161
385630
9
24 - 25
1.00
330
207
186
446926
10
25 - 42
17.00
330
207
186
446926
Table 6.10 Undrained soil condition: soil properties, for the PsD foundation
EU
No. of
Depth
Thickness
Vs
E'
[m/s] [kPa]
main layer
[m]
[m]
[kPa]
1
0-6
6.00
175 27900
2
6-8
2.00
175 41895
3
8 - 10
2.00
175
78553
4
10 -11
1.00
275
193978
5
11 -13
2.00
270 182833
6
13 - 14.60
1.60
270 265939
7
14.60 - 15
0.40
270
353201
8
15 - 16.30
1.30
340
625974
9
16.30 - 19.50
3.20
340 421709
10
19.50 - 20
0.50
290
469783
11
20 - 21
1.00
290
469783
12
21 - 24
3.00
310 385630
13
24 - 25
1.00
330 446926
14
25 - 42
17.00
330 446926
133
-0 .04
-0.045
-0 .05
-0
-0 .
.0
03
-0 .0 2 5
5
2
-0.045
-0.05
5
-0 .0.044
-0
-0.05
-0.045
-0.04
-0
.0
45
-0 .0
5
.03
-0
-0 .03 5
-0 .0
4
-0.05
35
-0 .0
3
-0 .0
-0
.03
5
.03
-0
5
.02
-0
3
.0
-0
-0
.02
-0.04 5 .04
-0
-0 .05
-0 .04 -0.04 5
-0 .03
5
Width [m]
-0 .04
5
.04
-0
-0 .05
-0 .04
10
-0 -0 .0
.0 2 5
3
-0 .
03
5
12
25
-0 .0
5
.01
-0
-0 .02
-0 .02
4
-0 015
8
10
Length [m]
12
14
16
Figure 6.13 Drained conditions: infinitely flexible foundation. Deformation in [m]

-0.04
-0 .04
-0.045
-0.04 5
45
-0 .0
-0 .04
-0
-0 .0 .04 5
4
-0.045
-0.04
-0 .03 5
-0 .03 5
3
-0 .0
5
.02
-0
-0 .04
25
-0 .0
-0
.02
-0
.0
25
-0 .04
-0 .04 5
-0 .035
-0 .0
3
-0 .03
-0.04 5
Width [m]
-0.04
-0 .0
45
10
35
-0 .0
-0 03
2
2
-0 .0
4
-0 .015
.04
-0
-0 .03 5
-0 .03
-0 0 .0
2
-0 .02 5
.03
-0 .
03
5
12
-0 .02
-0.015
8
10
Length [m]
-0 .01 5
12
14
1
.0
-0
16
Figure 6.14 Undrained conditions: infinitely flexible foundation. Deformation in [m]
As a first trial, a thickness of 40 cm was assumed for the foundation. The deformations
caused by the applied loads are represented in Figure 6.15, for drained soil condition and
one may observe a greater weakness of the foundation under the longest reaction wall.
The differential displacements could be a significant problem to solve if the real situation
is the one depicted. In reality applying the loads to a 40 cm thick foundation is not a
representation of the real situation. The actual foundation is a stiffer floor 2.4 m thick.
Therefore, to take into account the stiffness of the strong floor, a 2.40 m thick
foundation was considered in FOCALS analyses. The vertical deformations due to the
applied loads are represented in Figure 6.16. As clearly shown, the large stiffness of the
strong floor causes a rigid rotation of the overall system towards the corner between the
two reaction walls. In this zone the maximum vertical displacement is almost 5 cm. The
opposite corner would be subjected to a lower displacement of 1.5 cm.
For completeness, the same analyses have been performed for the short-term soil
condition. The soil deformations are depicted in Figure 6.14. For a 40 cm thick
foundation, the vertical displacement trend is in Figure 6.15. When the actual stiffness of
134

Vertical Settlement STRONG FLOOR
12
5
.03
-0
8
10
Length [m]
12
14
16
03
-0 .
2
-0 .
03
5
-0
.0
4
-0 .0
4
25
-0 .0
2
-0 .0
5
.02
-0
02
-0 .
-0
.02
Width [m]
-0
.04
35
.0
-0
25
.0
-0
3
-0 .0
3
.0
-0
15
-0 .0
2
-0 .0
5
.03
-0
2
-0 .0
5
02
-0 .
.03
-0
-0
.02
25
-0 .0
3
.0
-0
35
-0 .0
-0
.0
15
03
-0 .
4
-0 .0
.04
-0
-0 .01
-0
.0
1
-0
.0
25
Width [m]
03
-0 .
5
.03
-0
-0 .04
35
-0 .0
4
.0
-0
10
-0
.03
-0 .04
-0
.03
-0
.03
5
-0 .
04
4
.0
-0
-0
.03
5
-0
.0
35
5
.04
-0
10
12
5
.04
-0
8
10
Length [m]
12
14
16
Figure 6.15 Drained (on the right) and undrained (on the left) conditions: 40 cm
foundation. Deformation in [m]
12
12
04
-0 .
5
04
-0 .
10
04
-0 .
03
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
03
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
8
04
-0 .
03
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
03
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
Width [m]
Width [m]
5
02
-0 .
02
-0 .
04
-0 .
03
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
03
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
02
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
02
-0 .
5
01
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
2
03
-0 .
5
04
-0 .
10
04
-0 .
Wall2
5
03
-0 .
04
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
8
Length [m]
02
-0 .
10
12
5
01
-0 .
14
16
03
-0 .
Wall1
0
0
8
10
Length [m]
12
14
Figure 6.16 Drained conditions: 240 cm foundation (only to take into account the
stiffness of the strong floor). Deformation in [m]
16
135

12
12
5
03
-0 .
10
04
-0 .
Width [m]
5
03
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
03
-0 .
4
03
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
03
-0 .
03
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
02
-0 .
04
-0 .
04
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
03
-0 .
03
-0 .
03
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
02
-0 .
4
03
-0 .
8
10
Length [m]
5
03
-0 .
5
03
-0 .
5
02
-0 .
02
-0 .
02
-0 .
5
01
-0 .
5
01
-0 .
0
0
Wall2
5
04
-0 .
10
Width [m]
04
-0 .
12
14
16
Wall1
0
0
8
10
Length [m]
12
14
16
Figure 6.17 Undrained conditions: 240 cm foundation (to account for strong floor
stiffness). Deformation in [m]
the strong floor is considered a more realistic trend of the settlement is shown in Figure
6.17. The maximum difference in terms of displacements between the drained and
undrained condition is of the order of 0.5 cm.
In Table 6.11 a summary of the maximum and minimum vertical displacements is given
for all the analysed situations. The maximum settlement is -0.04947m for the drained soil
condition.
Table 6.11 Maximum and minimum values of the vertical settlement for
different analysed cases
Vertical Settlement
Case
min [m]
max [m]
Drained soil - No foundation
-0.05415 -0.007631
Undrained soil - No foundation
-0.05128 -0.006455
Drained soil - 40 cm thick foundation
-0.04660 -0.008059
Undrained soil - 40 cm thick foundation
-0.04375 -0.006864
Drained soil - 40 cm thick foundation + strong floor stiffness
-0.04947 -0.01246
Undrained soil - 40 cm thick foundation + strong floor stiffness -0.0468
-0.01067
136
The rigid rotation due to the settlement of the system had to be eliminated as it could
hinder the optimum performance of the facility. A preloaded condition of the soil had to
be carried out to eliminate this deformation. The rigid rotation of the strong floor is
caused by the unbalanced load concentration in the proximity of the two reaction walls.
Before the construction of the facility, the same loads were applied on the sides opposite
the final configuration of the walls. This means that the precast blocks (those that would
be used to assemble the two walls) were positioned in order to produce a rigid rotation of
the opposite corner.
6.4 DYNAMIC SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION PROBLEM
As discussed in Chapter 3, the high-performance, uniaxial shaking table under
construction at EUCENTRE has forced the designers to face the challenging problem of
having a large reaction mass and an expensive isolation system to control and possibly
reduce the vibration impact if the traditional design approach were to be followed [Clark,
1992]. Accurate analyses must be performed in order to solve the dynamic soil-structure
interaction problem. A numerical model of the specimen, shaking table, hydrostatic
bearings, and reaction mass and soil/foundation system was set-up using the lumped
mass approach with the aim of predicting the performance of the shaking table. Dynamic
soil-foundation structure interaction was taken into account using the computer code
DYNA4 [Novak et al., 1993]. A systematic numerical simulation programme was carried
out using harmonic and natural excitation signals. Optimization of the reaction mass and
foundation design is a result of these analyses. In this section, the methodology and the
analyses are explained with reference to the work of Pavese et al. [2005].
Alongside the evaluation of acceleration, velocity and displacement values at the soilfoundation interface, an estimate of the liquefaction susceptibility of the soil has been
carried out since the soil is mainly constituted by sand. Transmission of excitation from
the shaking table to the ground could result in densification and consequently settlement
in saturated sands. The densification of saturated sand is influenced by the density of the
sand, the maximum shear strain induced in the soil, and the amount of excess pore
pressure generated by the earthquake induced by the shaking table operation.
6.4.1 Dynamic soil-structure interaction
For the evaluation of the dynamic response of the shaking table and foundation/soil, a
three DOF lumped mass model has been developed. A rigid block placed over a
deformable and dissipative ground under harmonic and transient excitations was used to
model the behaviour of the dynamic testing facility (Figure 6.18).
137
Figure 6.18 Lumped model of the reaction mass/foundation for the EUCENTRE
dynamic facility
Considering the uniaxial motion of the shaking table, the 3 DOFs here considered in the
lumped model are: x-displacement (horizontal), z-displacement (vertical) and rotation in
the x-z plane. These DOFs may either be with reference to the centre of gravity G or to
the centre of the soil-structure interface O, both shown in Figure 6.18. M denotes the
mass of the block. The mass moment of inertia with respect to the y-axis is IM. The
equation of motion for the chosen reference point is:
Ku=P
(6.9)
where:
u is the (3,1) displacement vector and P is loading vector corresponding to the 3 rigid
body DOFs (u and P are complex-valued quantities),
K is a symmetric complex-valued matrix and it represents the impedance matrix defined
as:
K = KF 2 M
(6.10)
where KF is the impedance matrix of the mass-less foundation and M is the mass matrix
of the block related to the chosen point of reference.
The impedance matrix K can be written in a general way as sum of a real part, K R ( ) ,
and an imaginary part, K I ( ) :
K ( ) = K R ( ) + iK I ( )
(6.11)
with:
K R ( ) = k 2 M
K I ( ) = C
The solution of the equation of motion is:

u = K-1 P
(6.12)
138
with amplitudes |ui|and phase angles i given by:

|ui|= ( u iR )2 + ( u iI )2
and tan i =
u iI
, i = 1, 2,3
u iR
(6.13)
where u iR and u iI are the real and imaginary components of the complex solution u.
The impedance matrix K is usually given with respect to the centre of the lower soilfoundation interface O whereas, the mass matrix with respect to the centre of gravity of
the rigid block G. It is obvious that the equation of motion has to be established with
respect to selected reference point.
With reference to Eq. (6.10) and Eq. (6.11), the KF is the impedance matrix of the massless foundation given by:
KF = k + i C
(6.14)
The stiffness k and damping C matrices of the Eq. (6.14) are frequency-dependent
coefficients obtained using the computer code DYNA4 [Novak et al., 1993]. The program
DYNA4 returns the response of rigid foundations to all types of dynamic loads. The
foundation stiffness and the damping constants (referred to the centre of gravity of the
footing specified in the input, and then stored in matrices) are also returned for soilstructure interaction analysis. For the case under investigation, the type of foundation
defined by the program is denoted as shallow foundation resting over a compositemedium, i.e., the footing base rests on the surface of a shallow layer underlain by a
halfspace. The layer can be considered non-uniform with linearly varying shear wave
velocity. The halfspace is homogeneous and viscoelastic like the overlying layers. The
footing is embedded in a stratified medium. The foundation stiffness and damping
matrices are computed considering both harmonic non-quadratic loads and transient
loads, within the possible operational frequency range of 0-20Hz (see Table 2.5).
The results obtained from the soil-structure interaction were instrumental in choosing to
design the shaking table without the isolation system. Figure 6.19 shows the layout of the
two competing configurations for the shaking table with (Figure 6.19 on left) and without
(Figure 6.19 on right) the isolation system. This configuration without isolation system
turned out to better fulfil the design requirements and therefore it was chosen and further
optimized. Hereunder a brief description of the two configurations is given.
139
Configuration with isolation system

The first configuration refers to the reaction mass-airbags-foundation/soil system, with
reference to the configuration depicted in Figure 6.19 (on left), with 150 T29 airbags
(section 3.5) and 80 cm thick foundation (section 6.3.2). For this configuration, the rigid
block of Figure 6.18 represents the foundation. To take into account the dynamic
behaviour of both reaction mass and foundation, a computer code [The MathWorks,
Inc., 2002] was developed to find the solution of the equation of motion for the overall
system under dynamic harmonic and transient loads. The complex-valued u vector,
solution of the equation of motion, contains the DOFs of both reaction mass (uz_R, ux_R,
xz_R) and foundation/soil (uz_F, ux_F, xz_F).
Figure 6.19 Competing configurations studied for the reaction mass/foundation design
of the EUCENTRE shaking table
From the geometrical data of the foundation and reaction mass, the two (33) mass
matrices were computed, namely M and MR. As reference point for writing the equation
of motion, the middle point O at the soil/foundation interface was considered. Using
kinematic constrained equations, the reaction mass matrix referred to O, MR0, was
computed.
With DYNA4 [Novak et al., 1993] it was possible to compute the dynamic impedances.
The rectangular footing base rests on the surface of a shallow non-uniform layer (shear
wave velocity initial value 200 m/s, final one 300 m/s, thick layer). The mass and
geometrical properties of the foundation were introduced. A weakened zone underlying
the composite-medium foundation was considered. Only one side soil layer was
considered, as well as one soil layer from the footing base up, 200 m/s shear velocity, 1.9
Mg/m3 of unit weight, 0.35 Poissons ratio, 0.05 material damping. The soil below the
footing base was described with 300m/s layer shear velocity, 1.9 Mg/m3 layer unit weight,
0.35 Poissons ratio.
140
Starting from harmonic non-quadratic loads, the defined constants were the force in xdirection (1500.9 kN) and the moment about y-axis (6999.6 kNm). As output results, the
stiffness and damping constants were computed at 0.1 Hz, for vertical translation, torsion
about z-axis, horizontal translation and rotation in x-z plane. The impedance matrix of
the mass-less foundation, KF, is computed, as well as the impedance matrix K (Eq. (6.10))
of the soil/foundation. The local stiffness matrix of the reaction mass is computed as
follows:
KRM = - 2 MR0
(6.15)
The airbag contributions in terms of stiffness and damping were stored in two diagonal
(33) matrices, KA and CA respectively. In terms of stiffness matrix coefficients, the total
vertical, horizontal and rotational contributions were computed using the design data
given by the manufacturer (vertical stiffness 1154.4 kN/m; horizontal stiffness 316 kN/m
at 6 bar) [Cf_Gomma, 2001]. For the damping matrix, the design-damping ratio of the
airbags (0.03) was considered.
The local stiffness and damping matrices introduced were then assembled to form the
global system stiffness matrix, K. The (66) K matrix takes into account the 3 DOFs of
the reaction mass and the 3 DOFs of the soil/foundation. The elements of rows and
columns with index between 1 and 3 have been derived from the assembly of the local
reaction mass stiffness matrix, Eq. (6.15). The elements of rows and columns with index
between 4 and 6 represent the assemblage of the foundation impedance matrix K. The
local stiffness, KA, and damping, CA, matrices due to the airbags were assembled
according to the involved DOF, as well as the mixed terms coupling horizontal DOF
with rotation. The damping contributions were assembled as stiffness terms: iCA.
Therefore, the equation of motion (6.12) is updated taking into account the overall
assembled system:
Ka ua = Pa
(6.16)
where:
Ka is the assembled system matrix (66),
ua is the (6,1) vector assembling the DOFs of reaction mass and foundation/soil,
Pa is the (6,1) vector of the external dynamic loads from the reaction mass. This load
vector includes the horizontal force given by the actuator, and the moment due to the
horizontal force (which has a vertical arm with respect to the foundation) and the vertical
reactions from the fixed basements due to the OTM of both platform and specimen.
The solution of the equation of motion is the complex displacement amplitude ua of the
assembled system from which displacements, accelerations for both reaction mass and
foundation/soil interface, as well as foundation reactions in terms of forces and moments
were computed.
141
Considering the results in Table 6.12, one can see that, for zero damping ratios, the
amplification of motion is unacceptable. Considering the case of a 0.80 m thick
foundation the transmitted motion to the reaction mass could cause 9 m displacement as
well as 44.7 g horizontal acceleration at the resonant frequency of 1.1 Hz. The
amplitudes, at the same frequency, were slightly reduced considering a 3.0 m high footing.
The results improve with damping ratio of 3% due to airbags (Table 6.13). The
introduced damping ratio is assumed to be the same for each vibrational mode, but the
damping constant C is computed as function of the frequency of each vibrational mode.
The diagonal terms of the CA matrix are given by:
Cii = 2 i / ii2 , i = 1, 2, 3
(6.17)
where ii are the normalized mode shapes of the system constituted by the reaction mass
and airbags.
Due to the imposed damping value, the amplitude is not infinity with respect to the
resonance frequency of the system. However, both horizontal acceleration and
displacement of the reaction mass remain unacceptable for both 0.80 m and 3.0 m thick
foundations.
Geometry
0.80 m thick
foundation
3.0 m thick
foundation
3.0 m thick
foundation
rigidly
connected to
RM
Table 6.12 Response functions for harmonic loads ( = 0.0%) for the
configuration in Figure 6.19 (on left)
Reactions
Rotation DOF
Translation DOF
Rotat.
Accel.
Displ.
Fh
M
Accel.
[rad]
[g]
[m]
[kN]
[kNm]
[rad/s2]
RM 40.7 RM
0.85
RM 44.7 RM
9
420900
851900
F
0.27
F
0.0057
F
0.74
F
0.15
RM 20.1 RM
0.42
RM 22.1 RM
4.5
191100
688500
F
0.18
F
0.0038
F
0.26
F
0.054
1687
12267
0.198
RM
0.11
0.057
RM 0.00055
0.0000709
F
0.00039
Table 6.13 Response functions for harmonic loads ( = 3.0% due to

airbags) for the configuration in Figure 6.19 (on left)
Geometry
Reactions
Rotation DOF
Translation DOF
Rotat.
Accel.
Displ.
Fh
M
Accel.
[rad]
[g]
[m]
[kN]
[kNm]
[rad/s2]
0.80 m thick
RM 1.44 RM 0.0301 RM 1.575 RM 0.323
14870
30210
foundation
F 0.0097 F 0.000203 F
0.026
F 0.0053
3.0 m thick
RM 1.32 RM 0.0277 RM 1.45 RM 0.299
12580
45460
foundation
F
0.012
F
0.00025
F 0.0173 F 0.0035
Note: RM = Reaction Mass ; F = Foundation
142
It should be emphasized that the kinematic response of the shaking table system could be
improved (i.e. obtaining acceptable values of displacements and accelerations) by adding a
set of external dampers to increase the values of damping ratio (as explained in section
3.5). The best solution should be to locate external dampers inclined at 45 in order to
damp out both horizontal and vertical motions in the same way.
If the airbags were discarded and a rigid connection was imposed between reaction mass
and a 3.0 m thick foundation, the response was strongly reduced (Table 6.12, third case)
for a resonant frequency of 7.6 Hz. Following the results in Table 6.12 for the
configuration without the airbags and the external dampers, and that with an increased
overall reaction mass and depth of excavation, an alternative methodology was to be
adopted, i.e., no base isolation, no external dampers and relatively light reaction mass.
Configuration without isolation system
The second configuration refers to the rigid block formed by the reaction mass and the
foundation. The initial trial configuration is depicted in Figure 6.19: 4.80 metres of
concrete were added to the original precast system increasing the weight of the reaction
mass up to 2680 tonnes. The computer code DYNA4 [Novak et al., 1993] was used for
the new model of foundation and soil. The layer shear wave velocity was increased from
200 m/s to 300 m/s, instead 200 m/s was maintained for the side layer. The weak zone
was increased, so was the excavation depth. As in the previous solution, the harmonic
non-quadratic loads were defined by two amplitudes: the force in x-direction (1500.9 kN)
and the moment about y-axis (6999.6 kNm).
As output results, the stiffness and damping constants were computed at 0.1 Hz step, for
vertical translation, torsion about z-axis, horizontal translation and rotation in x-z plane
of the overall rigid block. The impedance matrix K is computed and the solved equation
of motion is Eq. (6.12). The complex u contains the z-displacement, x-displacement and
the rotation in the x-z plane of the rigid block. From DYNA4 the amplitudes u are
computed with respect to the centre of gravity of the overall system composed by the
reaction mass rigidly connected to the foundation.
In order to validate the computer code developed to model the foundation/soil, a
comparison was made using DYNA 4. The same analysis with harmonic non-quadratic
loads was performed and the displacements and accelerations were computed at the
centre of gravity of the rigid block and at its interface with the soil. Table 6.14 shows the
maximum response of the rigid block. The displacements and accelerations were largely
reduced with respect to the dynamic response of the base-isolated model (Figure 6.19, on
left). The maximum translation of the system is 6.277E-4 m at the resonant frequency of
6.10 Hz.
143
Table 6.14 Response functions for harmonic loads for the configuration in
Figure 6.19 (on right) ( = 0%)
Reactions
Rotation DOF
Translation DOF
Geometry
Accel.
Rotat. [rad]
Accel. [g]
Displ. [mm]
Fh [kN] M [kNm]
[rad/s2]
4.8 m thick
G
0.106
G
0.63
2676
19960
0.0961
5.763E-5
rigid
B
0.061
B
0.36
foundation
where:
G = centre of gravity of the rigid block

B = interface between rigid block and soil
Since the ground motion amplitude transmitted by the rigid block is small, a new analysis
was proposed in order to optimize the design of reaction mass and foundation system.
The excavation level was reduced from 4.8 m to 3.0 m. This configuration weighs 20
times the sum of shaking table and specimen masses. As dynamic loads, harmonic and
random excitation signals were considered.
In Figure 6.20 and Figure 6.21, the dynamic impedance functions are plotted (derived
from DYNA4, [Novak et al., 1993]). Figure 6.20 shows the stiffness and damping
constants for both vertical and horizontal directions; Figure 6.21 shows the contributions
of the rocking around y-axis and of the coupling between this rotation and the horizontal
motion of the rigid block.
The harmonic excitation functions used for this analysis are plotted in Figure 6.22: the
horizontal force Fh and the moment were computed with respect to the base of the rigid
block. The response functions in terms of both horizontal and rotational displacement
and acceleration are plotted from Figure 6.23 to Figure 6.24. The maximum response
amplitudes obtained at the resonance frequency of 7.6 Hz from these analyses are
summarized in Table 6.15. The displacement of the centre of gravity was smaller than the
one of the previous case (Table 6.14) but a slight increase of the acceleration could be
noticed.
Table 6.15 Response functions for harmonic loads for 3.0 m thick rigid
foundation ( = 0%) (Figure 6.19, on right)
Geometry
Reactions
Rotation DOF
Translation DOF
Accel. [g]
Displ. [mm]
Fh [kN] M [kNm] Accel. [rad/s2] Rotat. [rad]
3.0 m thick
G
0.113
G
0.55
1688
12670
1.977E-01
7.086E-05
rigid
B
0.057
B
0.39
foundation
144
Figure 6.20 Dynamic impedance functions (DYNA4 [Novak et al., 1993])
Figure 6.21 Dynamic impedance functions (DYNA4 [Novak et al., 1993])
145

AMPLITUDE ACTIVE FORCES (at base react. mass)
2000
Fh [kN]
Horizontal Force max|Fh| = 1.501e+003
1000
8
10
12
Frequency [Hz]
14
16
18
20
8000
Moment max|M| = 6.698e+003
M [kNm]
6000
4000
2000
0
8
10
12
Frequency [Hz]
14
16
18
20
Figure 6.22 Harmonic loads: excitation functions of the 3.0 m thick rigid foundation
H-DISPLACEMENT Amplitude for harmonic load
H-ACCELERATION Amplitude for harmonic load
0.7
0.02
Reaction mass max|Ah| = 1.132e-001
Foundation max|Ah| = 5.708e-002
0.6
0.5
-0.02
0.4
-0.04
Ah [g]
Uh [mm]
Reaction mass max|Uh| = 5.521e-001

Foundation max|Uh| = 3.974e-001
0.3
-0.06
0.2
-0.08
0.1
-0.1
-0.12
8
10
12
Frequency [Hz]
14
16
18
20
8
10
12
Frequency [Hz]
14
16
18
20
Figure 6.23 Response functions related to the horizontal DOF (harmonic excitations) of
the 3.0 m thick rigid foundation
-5
Acc. ROTATION Amplitude for harmonic load
ROTATION Amplitude for harmonic load
x 10
0.05
Reaction mass max|AR| = 1.977e-001
Foundation max|AR| = 1.977e-001
Reaction mass max|R| = 7.086e-005

Foundation max|R| = 7.086e-005
AR [rad/s2]
R [rad]
6
5
4
-0.05
-0.1
3
2
-0.15
1
0
8
10
12
Frequency [Hz]
14
16
18
20
-0.2
8
10
12
Frequency [Hz]
14
16
18
20
Figure 6.24 Response functions related to the rotational DOF (harmonic excitations) of
the 3.0 m thick rigid foundation
146
FOUNDATION REACTION
2000
Fh [kN]
Horizontal Reaction max|Fh| = 1.688e+003
1000
8
10
12
Frequency [Hz]
14
16
18
20
15000
Mr [kNm]
Moment Reaction max|Mr| = 1.267e+004

10000
5000
8
10
12
Frequency [Hz]
14
16
18
20
Figure 6.25 Foundation reactions due to harmonic excitations of the 3.0 m thick rigid
foundation
The configuration was then analysed applying random excitation signals (accelerograms).
These ground motions (from Calvi et al. [2004]) were chosen with the criterion of
reproducing the excitation that should be used in running the experimental tests with the
shaking table. The selected accelerograms are the same considered in section 3.6 to
compute the horizontal force and the overturning moment due to the scaled (1:2 and 1:3)
bridge piers. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) values of each accelerogram used in
these analyses are summarized in Table 6.16 and in APPENDIX C. Bridge piers were
considered as specimens on the shaking table short (S250) and tall (T250) bridge piers
(already used in section 3.6). For the geometrical data and reinforcement details of the
full-scale bridge piers, the reader is referred to Pavese et al. [2004]. The horizontal force at
the base of the 1:2 scale specimen and the resulting overturning moment (which included
the moments caused by the vertical reactions from the steel frames (section 3.3.1))
became the input of the numerical simulations considering the lumped-mass model (with
three DOFs).
In Figure 6.26, the time-histories of excitation actions (base shear and overturning
moment) from the analysis of the S250 specimen under the Coalinga ground motion
(Pleasant Valley P.P. Yard, 1983) are depicted. In terms of response functions, the
maximum horizontal displacement of the reaction mass centre of gravity was 2.703E-01
mm (Figure 6.27); its maximum horizontal acceleration is 3.524E-02g whereas the
horizontal velocity reaches 8.734E-03 m/s (Figure 6.27). The time-histories of rotational
displacement and acceleration of the reaction mass are plotted in Figure 6.28. The derived
reactions at the foundation/soil interface reach 753.9 kN for the horizontal force and
6293 kNm for the overturning moment (Figure 6.29).
147
A summary of the main results from the time-history analyses is reported in Table 6.16.
The Coalinga earthquake gave the highest horizontal acceleration and velocity for the
S250 specimen. The maximum displacement at the soil/foundation interface obtained
from the numerical simulations was due to Northridge excitation (Symilar Converter
Station East, 1994) 2.03E-1 mm.
Peak values of acceleration and displacement at the foundation base are in the range of
0.05 g and 0.5 mm, respectively. From this study the optimum mass ratio for the
EUCENTRE shaking table and specimen over the reaction mass turned out to be on the
order of 20 as compared with the typical values of 30 to 50 [Clark, 1992]. Taking into
account this optimum ratio, the final configuration of the reaction mass is the one
illustrated in Figure 3.18. The final weight of the rigid block reaches 2222 tonnes that is
more than 23 times the movable mass.
Table 6.16 Comparison: maximum acceleration, velocity and displacement for 3.0 m
rigid block foundation of the EUCENTRE shaking table (Figure 6.19)
Selected
Base max. reaction
Base max. reaction
Base max. reaction
accelerograms
mass acceleration
mass velocity
mass displacement
[g]
[m/s]
[mm]
S250
T250
S250
T250
S250
T250
Chi-Chi, Taiwan,
3.65E-03 7.87E-03 9.11E-04 3.19E-03 5.10E-02 1.71E-01
1999/09/20
(PGA=1.157g)
Kobe JMA,
1.55E-02 7.29E-03 5.22E-03 3.35E-03 1.89E-01 1.65E-01
1995/01/16
(PGA=0.821g)
Coalinga, Pleasant
Valley, 1983/05/02
2.07E-02 1.10E-02 5.33E-03 3.91E-02 1.77E-01 1.62E-01
(PGA=0.592g)
Northridge, Sylmar
Converter Station,
1.90E-02 9.86E-03 5.29E-03 3.42E-03 2.03E-01 1.72E-01
1994/01/17
(PGA=0.828g)
1000
0
-500
-1000
x 10
Moment max|M| = 5.301e+003
500
M [kNm]
Fh [kN]
Horizontal Force max|Fh| = 9.802e+002
0.5
0
-0.5
Time [s]
10
15
-1
Time [s]
10
15
Figure 6.26 Excitation action time-histories (at the centre of gravity of the reaction mass):
Coalinga Earthquake, scaled 1:2 bridge pier S250
148
Reaction mass H-ACCELERATION
Reaction mass H-DISPLACEMENT

0.05
0.3
Baricenter max|Uh| = 2.703e-001
Base max|Uh| = 1.765e-001
Baricenter max|Ah| = 3.524e-002

Base max|Ah| = 2.072e-002
0.04
0.2
0.03
0.1
Ah [g]
Uh [mm]
0.02
-0.1
0.01
0
-0.01
-0.2
-0.02
-0.3
-0.4
-0.03
-0.04
10
15
10
15
Time [sec]
Time [sec]
Reaction mass H-VELOCITY

0.015
Baricenter max|Vh| = 8.734e-003
Base max|Vh| = 5.333e-003
0.01
Vh [m/s]
0.005
-0.005
-0.01
0
10
15
Time [sec]
Figure 6.27 Response functions related to the translational DOF (Coalinga

earthquake)
x 10
-5
Reaction mass ROTATION
Reaction mass ROTATION ACCELERATION

0.06
Baricenter max|R| = 3.469e-005
Baricenter max|AR| = 5.681e-002
0.04
2
R [rad]
AR [rad/s ]
0.02
-0.02
-2
-0.04
-4
Time [sec]
10
15
-0.06
Time [sec]
10
Figure 6.28 Response functions related to the rotational DOF (Coalinga earthquake)
15
149
1000
Mr [kNm]
Fh [kN]
0
-500
0
Time [sec]
10
Moment Reaction max|Mr| = 6.293e+003
500
-1000
x 10
Horizontal Reaction max|Fh| = 7.539e+002
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
15
Time [sec]
10
15
Figure 6.29 Foundation reactions due to Coalinga earthquake
6.4.2 Evaluation of liquefaction potential

Laboratory experiments have shown that the volumetric strain after initial liquefaction
varies with relative density and maximum shear strain [Kramer, 1996]. Tokimatsu and
Seed [1987] used a correlation between (N1)60 (defined later) and relative density and an
estimate of the shear potential of liquefied soil from (N1)60 and cyclic stress ratio [Seed et
al., 1984] to produce a chart (Figure 6.30) that allows the volumetric strain after
liquefaction at a magnitude M = 7.5 earthquake to be estimated directly from the cyclic
stress ratio and SPT resistance.
Figure 6.30 Chart for estimation of volumetric strain in saturated sands from cyclic stress
ratio and standard penetration resistance. (After Tokimatsu and Seed, [1987]) [Kramer,
1996]
To use the chart in Figure 6.30, the cyclic stress ratio CSR must be computed as well as
the (N1)60 values. Seed and Idriss [1971] formulated the following equation for calculation
of the cyclic stress ratio:
CSR = av / vo' = 0.65 (a max / g ) vo / vo' rd
(6.18)
150
where:
amax = peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface generated by the earthquake,
g = acceleration of gravity,
vo and vo' are the total and effective vertical overburden stresses, respectively,
r d = stress reduction coefficient which accounts for the flexibility of the soil profile [Liao
and Withman, 1986; Robertson and Wride, 1998].
Criteria for evaluation of liquefaction resistance based on the SPT have been rather
robust over the years. Those criteria are largely embodied in the CSR versus (N1)60 plot
reproduced in Figure 6.31.
Figure 6.31 SPT clean-sand base curve for Magnitude 7.5. Earthquakes with data from
liquefaction case histories (modified from Seed et al. [1985])
(N1)60 is the SPT blow count normalized to an overburden pressure of approximately 100
kPa and hammer energy ratio or hammer efficiency of 60%. Several factors influence
SPT results [for more details, see Yuod et al., 2001]. Grain characteristics, such as soil
plasticity, may affect liquefaction resistance as well as fines content (FC). I.M.Idriss with
the assistance of R.B.Seed developed the following correction of (N1)60 to a clean sand
value, (N1)60cs:
( N 1 )60cs = + ( N 1 )60
(6.19)
151
where and are coefficients determined according to the percentage of fine contents
[with the relationships in Yuod et al., 2001].
From the SPT measured resistance, depicted in Figure 6.1, the (N1)60cs values were
computed and summarized in Table 6.17, using the results of the two boreholes BH01
and BH02. The cyclic shear resistance was computed taking into account three different
peak horizontal acceleration values at the ground surface: 0.32g, 0.10g and 0.05g. From
the numerical simulations described in section 6.4.1, 0.05g was the peak acceleration at
the foundation base. In addition, the cyclic shear resistance (CSR) values were computed
for horizontal peak ground accelerations of 0.10g and 0.32g, obtained for discarded
configurations and which could cause high settlement of the saturated sands and
liquefaction potential. Using the chart depicted in Figure 6.30, the volumetric strains v
and consequently, the total settlements were estimated (Table 6.18 and Table 6.19) for 25
m thick soil layer. The amount of the vertical settlement of the saturated sands is
estimated. From the SPT data derived from the two boreholes (BH01 and BH02) the
results are close.
Table 6.17 (N1)60 cs and CSR values for the calculation of
the settlement of saturated sands
Depth
BH01 BH02 PGA=0.32g PGA=0.10g PGA=0.05g
below ground
surface [m] (N1)60 cs (N1)60 cs
CSR
CSR
CSR
1.50
25
18
0.206
0.064
0.032
3.00
16
16
0.204
0.064
0.032
4.50
11
11
0.214
0.067
0.033
6.00
13
11
0.241
0.075
0.038
7.50
13
11
0.258
0.081
0.040
9.00
0.269
0.084
0.042
10.50
15
12
0.273
0.085
0.043
12.00
0.272
0.085
0.042
13.50
15
0.265
0.083
0.041
15.00
19
16
0.255
0.080
0.040
16.50
16
17
0.243
0.076
0.038
18.00
27
30
0.232
0.072
0.036
19.50
13
16
0.222
0.069
0.035
21.00
28
36
0.214
0.067
0.033
22.50
22
25
0.207
0.065
0.032
24.00
26
26
0.202
0.063
0.032
152

Table 6.18 Vertical settlement of the saturated sands using (N1)60 cs from
BH01
For PGA =0.05g
For PGA =0.1g
For PGA =0.32g
depth
depth
depth
(m)
(%)
[m]
(m)
(%)
[m]
(m)
(%)
[m]
5.0
0.06
0.0030
5.0
0.06
0.0030
5.0
2.50
0.1250
10.0
0.12
0.0060
10.0
1.00
0.0500
10.0
2.90
0.1450
15.0
0.03
0.0015
15.0
0.04
0.0020
15.0
1.20
0.0600
20.0
0.02
0.0010
20.0
0.04
0.0020
20.0
0.11
0.0055
25.0
0.02
0.0010
25.0
0.08
0.0040
25.0
0.08
0.0040
sum= 0.0125
sum= 0.3395
sum= 0.0610
Table 6.19 Vertical settlement of the saturated sands using (N1)60 cs from
BH02
For PGA =0.05g
For PGA =0.1g
For PGA =0.32g
depth
depth
depth
(m)
(%)
[m]
(m)
(%)
[m]
(m)
(%)
[m]
5.0
0.08
0.040
5.0
0.20
0.0100
5.0
2.75
0.1375
10.0
0.08
0.040
10.0
0.70
0.0350
10.0
2.50
0.1250
15.0
0.03
0.0015
15.0
0.04
0.0020
15.0
1.10
0.0550
20.0
0.02
0.0010
20.0
0.01
0.0005
20.0
0.07
0.0035
25.0
0.02
0.0010
25.0
0.03
0.0015
25.0
0.08
0.0040
sum= 0.0115
sum= 0.0490
sum= 0.3250
From the above calculations one can see that the amount of sand densification is not
negligible for a PGA of 0.32g. Corresponding to a predicted value of 0.05g (section 6.4.1)
the settlement is strongly reduced and it can be considered negligible.
The results underline the importance of an accurate study of the dynamic response of the
soil subjected to the motion induced by the earthquake simulator that is the shaking table.
Special care is required when sandy soils are present.
CHAPTER 7: CLOSURE
This manuscript described some of the work related to the design of the new
EUCENTRE testing facility in Pavia, featuring powerful dynamic and a pseudo-dynamic
large-scale testing apparatuses.
7.1 DESIGN OF THE TESTING FACILITY
7.1.1 Design of the shaking table
The single degree of freedom EUCENTRE shaking table, currently under construction in
Pavia (Italy) is characterized by a plan size of 5.6 m by 7.0 m and thickness of 1.5 m. It
can reproduce strong ground motions characterized by peak velocity as high as 1.5 m/s,
stroke of 1 m, and peak acceleration in excess of 1.8 g. In this work the solutions adopted
for the design of the platform, reaction mass, isolation system, and foundation were
presented. In particular, the methods for the optimization of the arrangements of
platform and hydrostatic bearings were illustrated. Relevant issues for the design of the
dynamic testing facility were listed and applied to arrive at the final configuration of the
shaking table. The design of reaction mass/foundation system took into account the
space constraints and the water table position. The reaction mass configuration was
studied in detail to reduce the tables resultant motion transmitted to the underlying soil.
7.1.2 Design of the PsD apparatus
One of the most distinguishing characteristics of the EUCENTRE PsD testing facility is
the presence of the two large reaction walls (L-shaped) allowing biaxial application of
forces in the horizontal plane. The construction solution allows using the two reaction
walls separately since they are not connected together. In this manuscript the design of
both strong floor and reaction walls was described. The optimization of the structural
configuration of the walls and floor was carried out to obtain a rigid, non-deformable
testing facility. The design of the post-tensioning system of cables was also illustrated and
the design of the complex foundation system was presented.
7.1.3 Soil-structure interaction problem
The investigation of the soil-structure interaction represented an important aspect of the
design of the overall testing facility since the EUCENTRE is located close to other
laboratories with high-precision, electronic equipments. In this work, the present state of
the soil was described on the basis of both laboratory and in-situ tests. The degradation
of the soil properties due to the cyclic action of loads was considered in the design phase
154
and described here. The computation of the settlements due to the static loads was
illustrated for both shaking table and PsD foundations. Dynamic soil-structure interaction
was taken into account and a systematic numerical simulation programme was carried out
to predict the ground motion induced by the excitation of the table. An outcome of that
study was the optimised design of the reaction mass/foundation system, i.e., a relatively
light reaction mass (mass ratio for shaking table and specimen over reaction mass turned
out to be on the order of 20) with no base isolation.
7.2 FUTURE WORK
The future steps before the commissioning of the shaking table are calibration and
tuning. The alignment of the actuator with both platform and reaction mass should be
the first issue to be carefully scrutinised. Performance of the control system of the
shaking table has to be investigated for specimen-table interaction; dynamic
characteristics of large specimens may introduce significant force disturbances in the
table. In other words, it would be inappropriate to run the table with controller tunings
determined using the bare table, if good control is expected. The necessary simulation
tools to identify the machine systems behaviour require knowledge of the machine
foundation, the structural system, the mechanical and hydraulic system, and the electronic
feedback control, for full dynamic systems characterization. One such cross-disciplinary
tool should be developed at EUCENTRE to characterize the shaking table. This
simulation model should be used both for predicting the systems performance under the
wide range of test configurations available, and for explaining and/or replicating
observed behaviours.
With regards to the pseudo-dynamic apparatus, calibration and tuning of the hydraulic
actuators will necessarily have to be carried out. The performance of the electronic
control system will also need to be investigated and compared against the design
requirements.
REFERENCES
A
Abrams D.P. [1996] Effects of Scale and Loading Rate with Tests of Concrete and Masonry
Structures, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No.1.
Alga [2004] Alga Cable T15 Post-Tensioning System, Technical Flyer, Milan, Italy.
Aristizabal-Ochoa J.D. and Clark A.J. [1980] Large-Scale Earthquake Simulation Tables,
Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey,
Vol.7, pp.157-164.
B
Blakeborough A., Severn R.T. and Taylor C.A. [1986] The new UK six-axis shaking table,
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon,
Portugal, Vol. 4, pp. 97-100.
Braja M.D. [1998] Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, Fourth Edition, International
Thomson Publishing, California State University, Sacramento.
BWFixatoren [2004] Serie RK for the Levelling, Adjustment and Fixation of Machinery and Other
Heavy Equipment, Installation Varieties and Technical Information, Technical Flyer, Bertuch &
Co GmbH Siemensstrae 15, 51381 Leverkusen, Germany.
C
Calvi G.M., Ceresa P., Casarotti C., Bolognini D., Auricchio F. [2004] Effects of Axial Force
Variation in the Seismic Response of Bridges Isolated with Friction Pendulum Systems, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, Special Issue 1, pp. 187-224.
Calvi G.M., Pavese A. [2000] Valutazione della vulnerabilit sismica dei ponti, Chapter 5 of the
Monograph (in Italian): Valutazione della Vulnerabilit Sismica dei Ponti di Catania, CNRGruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dei Terremoti, Rome, Italy.
Carvalho E. [1998] Seismic testing of structures, Proceedings of the 11th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, France, pp. 53-64.
Ceresa P. [2004] Design of a dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility, MsC thesis, ROSE
School, Pavia, Italy.
156
Chopra A.K. [2001] Dynamics of structures, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, United States of America.
Cf_Gomma [2001] Attuatori Pneumatici, Technical Flyer (in Italian), Milan, Italy.
Clark A.J. [1992] Dynamic characteristics of large multiple degree of freedom shaking tables,
Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain,
pp. 2823-2828.
Clark A.J. and Burton G.W. [1978] Design consideration for large shaking table systems,
Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Dubrovnik,
Yugoslavia.
Computer and Structures, Inc. [1995] SAP Nonlinear, 8.1.2 Structural Analysis Program,
Berkely, California, US.
Crewe A.J. [1998] The characterization and optimization of earthquake shaking table performance,
PhD thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
D
Das B.M. [1998] Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, Fourth edition, PWS Publishing
Company, California State University, Sacramento.
Department of Mechanical and Structural Engineering [2004] Materials and Structural
Testing [online], Materials and Structural Testing Laboratory, University of Trento, Italy,
available in URL: http://www.ing.unitn.it/dims/research_group/structural _design.php
Donea J., Magonette G., Negro P., Pegon P., Pinto A. and Verzeletti G. [1996] Pseudodynamic Capabilities of the ELSA Laboratory for Earthquake Testing of Large Structures,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 163-180.
Donea J. and Jones P.M. [1991] Experimental and Numerical Methods in Earthquake
Engineering, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
DUNLOP AIRSPRINGS [2002] Molle ad aria (cilindri flessibili), Gamma Standard a Piastre
Smontabili, Dimensioni da 2 a 26, Technical Catalouge (in Italian), Montlucon, France.
E
ECOEST [1997] Standardisation of shaking tables, Prenormative Research in Support of

Eurocode 8, Report No. 1, Editor Crewe A.
References
157
ECOEST [1996] Experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic response of bridges and
recommendations for code provisions, Prenormative Research in Support of Eurocode 8, Report
No.4, Editors Calvi G..M. and Pinto P.
F
Fabbrocino G. and Cosenza E. [2004] Shaking Tables for Seismic Simulation overview of the
CRdC-AMRA Project, Proceedings of the Workshop on Multidisciplinary Approach to
Seismic Risk Problem. SantAngelo dei Lombardi, September 22, 2003. Universit degli
Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy.
Firestone [1997] Engineering Manual and Design Guide, Metric edition [online], Carmel, Indiana,
US, Available from URL: http://www.firestoneindustrial.com.
French C.W., Schultz A.E., Hajjar J.F., Shield C.K., Ernie D.W., Dexter R.J., Du D.H.-C.,
Olson S.A., Daugherty D.J., Wan C.P. [2004] Multi-Axis Subassemblage Testing (MAST)
System: Description and Capabilities, Proceedings of the 13th World Conference Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, paper 2146.
G
GERB Vibration Control Systems [2000] Vibration Isolation Systems, Tenth Edition, Berlin,
Germany.
H
Hydros s.r.l. [2004] Impianto oleodinamico + Rete di distribuzione per laboratorio EUCENTRE,
in Italian, Supply No. 046/04, European Centre for Training and Research, Pavia, Italy.
J
Joint Research Centre - ELSA [1999] The European Laboratory for Structural Assessment,
Ispra, Italy. Available from the URL: http://www. elsa.jrc.it/reactionwall/index.html.
K
Kitada Y., Kinoshita M., Kubo T., Seo K. and Konno T. [2000] The test methodology to
evaluate ultimate earthquake response of an NPP building using earthquake ground motion by blasting,
Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand, paper 900.
Kramer S.L. [1996] Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey.
158
Lancellotta R. [1987] Geotecnica, First Edition, Zanichelli.

Liao S.S.C. and Withman R.V. [1986] Catalogue of liquefaction and non-liquefaction occurrences
during earthquakes. Research Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
M
MAC Spa Modern Advanced Concrete [2002] EMACO S55 Malta Cementizia Premiscelata
per Ancoraggio. Reoplastica, a Ritiro Compensato, Technical Flyer in Italian, Treviso, Italy.
Mahin S.A., Shing P.B., Thewalt C.R. and Hanson R.D. [1989] Pseudo-dynamic test method:
current status and future directions, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 115, pp. 2113-2128.
Mahin S.A. and Shing P.B. [1985] Pseudo-dynamic method for seismic testing, Journal Structural
Engineering, Vol. 111, pp. 1482-1503.
Minowa C., Hayashida T., Abe I., Kida T. and Okada T. [1996] A shaking table damage test
of actual size RC frame, Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, paper 747.
Molina F.J., Verzeletti G., Magonette G., Buchet P. and Geradin M. [1999] Bi-directional
pseudo-dynamic test of a full-size three-storey building, Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 28, pp. 1541-1566.
MTS System Corporation [2004] EUCENTRE Uniaxial Table Testing System and Pseudo
dynamic Structural Testing System, Supply No. 03252004, revision B, European Centre for
Training and Research, Pavia, Italy.
N
Nakashima M., Kaminosono T., Ishida M. and Ando K. [1990] Integration technique for
substructure pseudo-dynamic test, Proceedings of the 4th US National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs, pp. 515-524.
Negro P., Verzeletti G., Magonette G.E. and Pinto A.V. [1994] Tests on a Four-Storey FullScale R/C Frame Designed According to Eurocodes 8 and 2: Preliminary Report, Research Report
No. EUR 15879 EN, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy.
Novak M., Sheta M., El-Hifnawy L., El-Marsafawi H. and Ramadan O. [1993] DYNA4
A Computer Program for Calculation of Foundation Response to Dynamic Loads, User Manual,
References
159
Geotechnical Research Centre, The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario,

Canada.
O
Ogawa N., Ohtani K., Katayama T. and Shibata H. [2001] Construction of a three-dimensional
large-scale shaking table and development of core technology, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, Vol. 359, pp. 1725-1751.
Ogawa N., Ohtani K., Nakamura I., Sato E. and Nagasaki T. [2000] Development of core
technology for 3D 1200 tonne large shaking table, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, paper 2156.
Ohta T. and Goto N. [1978] Empirical Shearwave Velocity Equations in Terms of Characteristic
Soil Indexes, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 6, pp. 167-187.
Otani S. and Sozen M.A. [1972] Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frames during
Earthquakes, Research Report SRS-392, Structural Research Series, University of Illinois,
Urbana, U.S.
P
Paulson T.J. and Abrams D.P. [1990] Correlation between Static and Dynamic Response of Model
Masonry Structures, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 6, No. 3.
Pavese A., Lai C.G., Calvi G.M., Ceresa P. and Beltrami C. [2005] Reaction mass and
foundation of the high-performance, one-degree-of-freedom EUCENTRE shaking table, in Pavia, Italy,
Proceedings of the The First International Conference on Advances in Experimental
Structural Engineering, Nagoya, Japan.
Pavese A., Peloso S., Bolognini D. [2004] FRP Seismic Retrofit of RC Square Hollow Section
Bridge Piers, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, Special Issue 1, pp. 225-250.
Pinho R. [2000] Shaking table testing of RC walls, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology,
Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 119-142.
Pinho R. and Elnashai A.S. [2000] Dynamic collapse testing of a full-scale four storey RC frame,
ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 143-164.
R
Robertson P.K. and Wride C.E. [1998] Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone
penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Ottawa, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 442-459.
160
Rogers F.J. [1908] Experiments with a shaking table, Research Report, Vol. 1, Part II,
California State Earthquake Investigation Commission.
S
Seed H.B., Tokimatsu K., Harder L.F. and Chung R.M. [1985] The influence of SPT
procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluation, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 111, No. 12, pp. 1425-1445.
Seed H.B., Wong R.T., Idriss I.M. and Tokimatsu K. [1984] Moduli and Damping Factors for
Dynamic Analyses of Cohesionless Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
112, No. 11, pp. 1016-1032.
Seed H.B. and Idriss I.M. [1971] Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential,
ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 97, No. 9, pp. 1249-1273.
Sieffert J.-G., Schmid G. and Tosecky A. [2004] Soil-Structure Interaction Foundations
Vibrations, Lecture for the Master Course Computational Engineering, Rurh University
Bochum, Germany.
Sozen M.A., Otani S., Gulkan P. and Nielsen N.N. [1969] The University of Illinois
Earthquake Simulator, Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Santiago, Chile, Vol. III.
Sullivan T.J., Pinho R., Pavese A. [2004] An introduction to Structural Testing Techniques in
Earthquake Engineering. Educational Report No. ROSE-2004/01, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
T
Takanashi K. and Nakashima M. [1987] Japanese activities on online testing. Journal of

Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 113, pp. 1014-1032.
Taucer F. and Franchioni G. [2005] Directory of European Facilities for Seismic and Dynamic
Tests in Support of Industry. Cooperative Advancements in Seismic and Dynamic
Experiments (CASCADE), Report No. 6.
Tecno-cut [2004], Progettazione e Costruzione di una Tavola Vibrante a Sostenatamento Idrostatico,
in Italian, Supply No. 2004_025 rev.3, European Centre for Training and Research, Pavia,
Italy.
The MathWorks, Inc. [2002] Matlab, The Language of Technical Computing, Version
6.5.0.180913a, Release 13, License Number 236982.
References
161
Thewalt C.R. and Mahin S.A. [1995] Non-planar pseudo-dynamic testing. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 24, pp. 733-746.
Tokimatsu K. and Seed H.B. [1987] Evaluation of settlements in sand due to earthquake shaking,
ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8.
U
University of Patras [2004] Laboratory: Structures Laboratory [online], Available from the
URL: http://www.civil.upatras.gr/
V
Van Den Einde L., Restrepo J., Conte J., Luco E., Seible F., Filiatrault A., Clark A.,
Johnson A., Gram M., Kusner D. and Thoen B. [2004] Development of the George E. Brown
Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) Large High Performance Outdoor
Shaking Table at the University of California, San Diego, Proceedings of the 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, paper
3281.
W
Wardle L.J and Fraser R..A. [1975] Program Focals, Foundation on cross anisotropic layered system,
Geomechanics computer program number 4/1, Division of applied geomechanics,
Commonwealth scientific and industrial research organization, Australia.
Williams M.S. and Blakeborough A. [2001] Laboratory testing of structures under dynamic loads:
an introductory review, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: mathematical,
physical and engineering science, Vol. 359, pp. 1651-1669.
Y
Yuod T.L., Idriss I.M., Andrus R.D., Arango I., Castro G., Christian J.T., Dobry R., Finn
W.D.L., Harder Jr. L.F., Hynes M.H., Ishihara K., Koester J.P., Liao S.S.C., Marcuson III
W.F., Martin G.R., Mitchell J.K., Morawiki Y., Power M.S., Robertson P.K., Seed R.B.,
Stokoe II K.H. [2001] Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report from the 1996
NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenviromental Engineering, Vol. 817.
APPENDIX A Choice of the structural layout

The facility is located in the city of Pavia near Milan. This facility consists of only one
building that includes the laboratory and rooms for control and measurement operations,
hydraulic power supply, test preparation, and electric power supply. In Figure A.1 and
Figure A.2 two views of the EUCENTRE building are illustrated.
Figure A.1 East view of the EUCENTRE building
Figure A.2 North view of the EUCENTRE building
The basement houses the pump and accumulator room, material store and lecture hall.
The laboratory space for the shaking table and the pseudo-dynamic testing facility is at
the ground floor. The control and data acquisitions rooms are located at the first floor.
164
The dimensions (Figure A.3) of the centre in plan are 33.60 m long by 24.72 m wide, with
a total area of more than 830 m2. More than the 80% of the total area in plan has been
assigned to the laboratory 27 m long by 24.72 m wide area. The remaining 6.20 m long
by 24.72 m wide area has been organized into offices, control and acquisition rooms, etc.
The dimensions of the shaking table are determined combining the performance
requirements, the cost constraints and the construction constraints due to the presence of
the pseudo-dynamic testing facility.
From Figure A.2, one can observe the presence of a large main collapsible door which
allows easy transportation of test specimens reducing the potential for damage before the
experiment has been performed. The elevational dimensions of the laboratory (Figure
A.4) have been determined by the reaction wall heights.
Reaction mass
Shaking
Table
Strong-floor
Figure A.3 Plan view of the EUCENTRE Laboratory: ground floor level
165
Appendix A
Reaction
walls
Shaking
table
30-ton bridge-crane
Shaking table and

Reaction mass
Seminar
hall
Figure A.4 Sections of the EUCENTRE laboratory
APPENDIX B Welding technology for the EUCENTRE shaking table

Some details of the welded shaking table:
168
Some details: 6 kinds of welding technology proposed by Tecno-cut s.r.l
Welding type 1
Welding type 2
169
Appendix B
Welding type 3
Welding type 4
170
Welding type 5
Welding type 6
APPENDIX C Characteristics of the selected accelerograms

1
0.022
0.8
0.02
Coalinga earthquake PGA = 0.592g

0.6
0.018
0.016
Amplitude
Amplitude [g]
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
-0.4
0.006
-0.6
0.004
-0.8
0.002
-1
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10
-1
10
Time [sec]
10
10
Frequency [Hz]
COALINGA Pleasant Valley 1983/05/02 (PGA = 0.592g)

1
0.8
Kobe earthquake PGA = 0.821g

0.6
0.02
0.2
Amplitude
Amplitude [g]
0.4
0
-0.2
0.015
0.01
-0.4
-0.6
0.005
-0.8
-1
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
10
Time [sec]
-1
10
10
Frequency [Hz]
KOBE JMA 1995/01/16 (PGA = 0.821g)

1
0.02
0.8
0.018
0.016
0.4
0.014
Amplitude
Amplitude [g]
Northridge earthquake PGA = 0.828g

0.6
0.2
0
-0.2
0.012
0.01
0.008
-0.4
0.006
-0.6
0.004
-0.8
0.002
-1
0
10
15
20
Time [sec]
25
30
35
40
10
-1
10
10
Frequency [Hz]
NORTHRIDGE Symilar Converter Station 1994/01/17 (PGA = 0.828g)
10
172
0.035
1
Chi-Chi earthquake PGA = 1.157g
0.8
0.03
0.6
0.025
Amplitude
Amplitude [g]
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0.02
0.015
-0.4
0.01
-0.6
-0.8
0.005
-1
0
10
20
30
40
Time [sec]
50
60
70
80
10
-2
10
-1
10
Frequency [Hz]
CHI-CHI Taiwan 1999/09/20 (PGA = 1.157g)
10
10
APPENDIX D Tensile and compressive stresses for the PsD apparatus

(Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5)
Case 1) Forces applied to the 14.4 m long wall (% Asl = 0.500)
11
22
33
12
13
23
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
14.4 long wall

Localized value
Average value
[kN/m2]
[kN/m2]
1700
1700
8500
1700
650
650
2600
650
1500
1700
3000
1700
1100
600
1100
600
2000
1000
100
1000
800
800
800
800
Strong floor
Localized value
Average value
[kN/m2]
[kN/m2]
1300
650
3250
650
5100
1700
5100
1700
1880
1500
11400
3000
1100
550
1100
550
1600
800
1600
800
2000
1000
3000
1000
11
22
33
12
13
23
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
14.4 long wall

Localized value
Average value
[kN/m2]
[kN/m2]
1800
1300
9000
3250
700
5400
3250
5400
2250
3600
3000
11400
1200
1200
1200
1200
2200
1600
1100
1600
800
2200
800
3300
Strong floor
Localized value
Average value
[kN/m2]
[kN/m2]
650
1800
650
1800
1800
700
1800
700
1800
1800
3600
1800
600
600
600
600
800
1100
800
1100
1100
800
1100
800
174
11
22
33
12
13
23
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
Tension
Compression
14.4m long wall

Localized value
Average value
[kN/m2]
[kN/m2]
4000
2000
16000
2000
2000
12000
5000
12000
2000
4800
6000
12000
2400
3600
2400
3600
3000
1600
3000
1600
800
1500
800
6000
Strong floor
Localized value
Average value
[kN/m2]
[kN/m2]
1000
4000
1000
4000
4000
1000
4000
1000
4800
4200
4800
4200
1200
1200
1200
1200
800
1500
800
1500
1500
800
1500
800
APPENDIX E Top wall and top pier displacements for the final PsD
configuration (Figure 4.3)
Case 1) forces applied to the 9.6 m long wall (% Asl=0.500)
Applied Force in ydirection [kN]
1933.63
966.816
641.35
Joint
number
7255
7275
7305
7176
Height
[m]
3.5
7.0
10.5
12.0
UX
[m]
0
0
0
-2.089E-05
UY
[m]
-0.00752
-0.02949
-0.06622
0.00308
UZ
[m]
-5.278E-04
-8.332E-04
-0.00115
2.608E-04
UY
[m]
-0.00854
-0.03352
-0.07490
0.00348
UZ
[m]
-5.277E-04
-8.332E-04
-0.00115
3.089E-04
UY
[m]
-0.01752
-0.06864
-0.15359
0.00748
UZ
[m]
-4.356E-04
-7.794E-04
-0.00112
7.702E-04

1933.63
966.816
641.35
Joint
number
7255
7275
7305
7176
Height
[m]
3.5
7.0
10.5
12.0
UX
[m]
0
0
0
-2.26E-05

1933.63
966.816
641.35
Joint
number
7255
7275
7305
7176
Height
[m]
3.5
7.0
10.5
12.0
UX
[m]
0
0
0
-4.733E-05
Case 4) forces applied to the 14.4 m long wall (% Asl=0.500). The displacements of the
top of the piers are the same that in case 1). The displacement at the top of wall is:
Applied Force in
x-direction [kN]
Joint
number
5497
Height
[m]
12.0
UX
[m]
0.00211
UY
[m]
-1.636E-5
UZ
[m]
1.501E-04
Applied Force in
x-direction [kN]
Joint
number
5497
Height
[m]
12.0
UX
[m]
0.00238
UY
[m]
-1.778E-5
UZ
[m]
1.800E-04
Applied Force in
x-direction [kN]
Joint
number
5497
Height
[m]
12.0
UX
[m]
0.00482
UY
[m]
-2.913E-5
UZ
[m]
4.55E-04
APPENDIX F Wall displacements at the top and at the force application

joints for 1st possible PsD configuration (Figure 4.23)
Case 1) forces applied to the 2.4 m thickness wall (% Asl = 0.500)
1701.024
850.512
567.008
Joint
number
3413
3927
4441
4611
Height
[m]
3.5
7.0
10.5
12.0
UX
[m]
4.92E-07
-1.68E-06
1.20E-06
1.72E-06
UY
[m]
0.000493
0.001022
0.001708
0.001906
UZ
[m]
0.000135
0.000174
0.000188
0.000186

1933.63
966.816
641.35
Joint
number
3413
3927
4441
4611
Height
[m]
3.5
7.0
10.5
12.0
UX
[m]
9.00E-07
-2.02E-06
1.14E-06
1.79E-06
UY
[m]
0.000560
0.001160
0.001937
0.002161
UZ
[m]
0.000157
0.000204
0.000221
0.000219

3957.97
1978.988
1315.104
Joint
number
3413
3927
4441
4611
Height
[m]
3.5
7.0
10.5
12.0
UX
[m]
4.97E-06
-4.05E-06
1.85E-06
3.68E-06
UY
[m]
0.001148
0.002377
0.003969
0.004428
UZ
[m]
0.000354
0.000470
0.000513
0.000512

Applied Force in xdirection [kN]
1701.024
850.512
567.008
Joint
number
1966
2356
2746
2836
Height
[m]
3.5
7.0
10.5
12.0
UX
[m]
0.002278
0.005984
0.010143
0.011938
UY
[m]
-1.32E-05
-5.56E-05
-9.11E-05
-1.87E-06
UZ
[m]
0.000530
0.000667
0.000707
0.000693

1933.63
966.816
641.35
Joint
number
1966
2356
2746
2836
Height
[m]
3.5
7.0
10.5
12.0
UX
[m]
0.002586
0.006789
0.011504
0.013544
UY
[m]
-1.46E-05
-6.32E-05
-0.000104
-2.46E-06
UZ
[m]
0.000606
0.000763
0.000810
0.000793
178

3957.97
1978.988
1315.104
Joint
number
1966
2356
2746
2836
Height
[m]
3.5
7.0
10.5
12.0
UX
[m]
0.005297
0.013907
0.023566
0.027741
UY
[m]
-2.58E-05
-0.000128
-0.000128
-4.22E-06
UZ
[m]
0.001272
0.001616
0.001722
0.001685

Monografia

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Monografia

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

See

DESIGN OF A LARGE-SCALE DYNAMIC AND

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di P

121 PUBLICATIONS 2,493 CITATIONS

42 PUBLICATIONS 173 CITATIONS

Available from: Alberto Pavese

DESIGN OF A LARGE-SCALE DYNAMIC

Gian Michele Calvi

Pavia, Italy, July 2005

Copyright 2005 - IUSS Press

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

3.5.2 Design revision history ...............................................................................................52

APPENDIX C Characteristics of the selected accelerograms..........................................171

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

CHAPTER 2: THE NEW EUCENTRE FACILITY

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility

Table 2.1 Major existing dynamic testing facilities worldwide

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

b) In Italy: University of Naples Federico II AMRA shaking tables

Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility

Figure 2.2 Arrangement of the three-axis table at LNEC [ECOEST, 1997]

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

Figure 2.3 Arrangement of the six-axes table in Athens [ECOEST, 1997]

Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility

f) In Europe: University of Bristol (UK) EPRSC shaking table

Figure 2.4 Arrangement of the six-axis table in Bristol [ECOEST, 1997]

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

g) In USA: University of California San Diego LHP outdoor shaking table

Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility

size is 20 m by 15 m. The payload reaches 1200 tonnes. The maximum acceleration is

2.1.2 Summary of main features of existing shaking tables

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

Table 2.2 Performance characteristics of the shaking tables reviewed above

2.2 PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TESTING

Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility

Table 2.3 Major existing pseudo-dynamic testing facilities worldwide

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

2.2.1 Some existing facilities

Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility

b) In Italy: University of Trento PsD apparatus

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

hydraulic control system is capable of controlling the crosshead as a plane in space,

2.2.2 Summary of main features of existing pseudo-dynamic (PsD) facilities

Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility

scaled structures. The design requirements of the EUCENTRE pseudo-dynamic testing

2.3 DEFINITION OF THE NEW EUCENTRE TESTING FACILITY

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

Figure 2.9 Honeycomb-like network of stiffening diaphragms: one possible solution

Table 2.5 Performance characteristics of the EUCENTRE shaking table

Chapter 2: The new EUCENTRE facility

2.3.3 General description of the EUCENTRE pseudo-dynamic testing facility

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN OF THE DYNAMIC TESTING

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility

Chapter 3: Design of the dynamic testing facility

Specimen Base Shear

Table Inertial Force

Design of a large-scale dynamic and pseudo-dynamic testing facility