June 7, 2011

Seismic Response of Five-Story Steel Frame Withand Without Seismic Isolation
Blind Analysis Contest Description
1. Purpose
A Blind Analysis Contest is held in order to contribute to development of computational prediction ofseismic response and efficient modeling techniques for steel frame buildings, including thoseincorporating seismic isolation devices. The final goal is to improve seismic performance of steel frames
through numerical simulation. In 2009, a similar contest was organized for prediction of this samefull-scale five-story steel frame with both steel buckling-restrained braces and viscous dampers.
Because the actual dynamic load patterns will be determined during the course of the testing basedon observed response of the shaking table, the contest has two steps:
1. Pre-test blind predictions based on the anticipated earthquake loading.
2. Post-test predictions using the actual loading. The same analytical models must be usedboth for pre-test and post-test predictions.
All contest information can be accessed from the website: http://www.cuee.titech.ac.jp/contest. Allquestions can be directed to the contest organizers at: contest@cuee.titech.ac.jp.

2. Contest Organization
The contest is hosted by the Center for Urban Earthquake Engineering at Tokyo Institute ofTechnology, in collaboration with NEES-TIPS and NIED/E-Defense. A special committee has been
formed to organize the contest, and is responsible for the announcement, distribution of data, answering
questions, judgment, and producing the necessary experimental data for the contest. The chair of theBlind Analysis Contest is Kazuhiko Kasai (Tokyo Institute of Technology), and the working groups are
as follows:
Planning Working Group
Makoto Ohsaki (Leader, Hiroshima University), Tsuyoshi Hikino (Nippon Steel Engineering Inc.)
Keri Ryan (University of Nevada, Reno), Eiji Sato (E-Defense), Tsuyoshi Furuhasi (NipponUniversity), Shojiro Motoyui (Tokyo Institute of Technology)
Operation Working Group
Troy Morgan (Leader, Tokyo Institute of Technology), Taichiro Okazaki (Hokkaido University),
Gilberto Mosqueda (State University of New York, Buffalo), Kazuhiro Matsuda (Tokyo Instituteof Technology), Pu Wuchuan (Tokyo Institute of Technology), Shoichi Kishiki (Tokyo Institute ofTechnology)

1/5June 7, 2011

3. Qualification of the participants
The participants can be either an individual or a team, but one individual can be involved in only one
team or as an individual. A member of the above-mentioned organizing committee or a person who hasan access to test specifications prior to the official announcement can still submit his/her prediction
results, but is not eligible to compete for awards.

4. Categories
The contest is categorized by the building configuration, as shown below. Winners will be selected foreach of the following two categories:
Category 1: Conventional Fixed-Base Building Configuration
Category 2: Base Isolated Building Configuration
Each category will have one winner and both winners will receive awards according to Section 11. To beconsidered for an award, participants must submit analysis results for both categories. The teams withthree best results in each category will be reported in the website of CUEE, and will receive a certificate
for recognition.

5. Schedule
The current schedule for the contest is as follows:
May 31
July 15
Aug 15
Aug 16-20
Sept 19
Oct 31
Dec 31

Distribution of schedule and rules of the contest, specification of structuralcomponents and basic material properties
Deadline for contest registration
Submission of pre-test analysis results by participants
Shaking-table tests at E-Defense
Distribution of actual input data for post-test analysis
Submission of post-test analysis results by participantsAnnouncement of the winners*Note: Deadlines are at 6:00pm (JST). JST is GMT +9:00. All dates are for year 2011.

6. Plan of test and analysis
The five-story steel specimen used in the upcoming NEES-TIPS/E-Defense tests has already beentested extensively as part of an experimental program on passively-controlled steel frames by theE-Defense steel working group. Publications describing the previous testing of the bare steel frame will
be made available to contest participants for their use in preparing a submission.
The seismic motion to be used in the test is the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake Takatori
record1. The scale factor of the record will be 0.7 for both conventional and isolated configurations. The
orientation of the Takatori record is diagonally defined such that South-East component in X direction
1

The actual record, orientation and scale factors to be used are subject to modification.

2/5

June 7, 2011
and North-East component in Y direction of the frame.
The analysis model and method for analysis are to be fixed by the pre-test analysis. The samemodel and method as the pre-test analysis should be used in the post-test analysis except the seismic
motion, which is replaced by the measured motion of the shaking-table.

7. Specimen data to be provided
The following data will be distributed via contest website:
1. Structural geometry: plan, elevation, cross-sectional properties of structural members, anddetailed description of the specimen including connections to non-structural components.
2. Details of mass configuration (including non-structural components)
3. Results of previous testing of specimen at E-Defense4. Material test results: properties of steel and concrete, which are obtained by the test based onJapanese specification.
5. Time-history and response spectrum of seismic motion: target acceleration for pre-test analysis,
and measured acceleration for post-test analysis.
6. Photographs of the specimen during the construction process.

8. Analysis results to be submitted
Pre-test analysis
The following response quantities must be predicted and submitted as part of the pre-test analysis:
1. Maximum absolute displacement at each floor relative to the shake table platform
2. Maximum absolute acceleration at each floor
3. Average roof spectral acceleration over the frequency range 0.25 Hz ≤ f ≤ 0.75 Hz (assuming5% damping)
4. Maximum absolute story drift angle at each floor of the superstructure
5. Maximum absolute base shear
6. Maximum bidirectional isolator displacement at Northwest corner
7. Maximum compressive axial force in isolator at Northwest corner
Additionally, the following information shall be submitted:
8. Description of computational environment, model and method of analysis
9. Name of analysis program, type of availability of program (free, commercial, research purpose),name of computer, CPU time, number of degrees of freedom, constitutive models, definition ofdamping, and method of time integration should be described.
10. Input files to the analysis program. Data should be in ASCII format, and all the non-default
values such as damping factor, hardening parameters, etc., should be explained. The input echoof the analysis program is preferred, while the geometry data such as nodal coordinates andnode-element relations are not needed.

3/5

June 7, 2011

Post-test analysis
Responses to be predicted are same as (1)-(6) above for the pre-test analysis. This only difference
between this pre- and post-test analysis is the input ground acceleration, which will be the actual
recorded acceleration from the shake table test program. Also, items (7)-(9) shall be submitted toestablish consistency with the previously submitted model. Judges will evaluate the post-test
submission to ensure that the same data except or the input motion is the same between the pre-test
and post-test analysis.

General remarks
Unless otherwise indicated, all prediction shall be made in both the X and Y directions. The maximum
absolute values of relative displacement and absolute acceleration are evaluated on the upper surface at
the center of each floor. All predictions shall be reported in SI units (mm, kN, sec, rad); do not use
derived units such as ‘g’ or ‘%’. Each number shall have four significant figures. For example, a story
drift angle can be reported as 0.01234 rad. Conversions: 1 inch = 25.4 mm, 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

9. Evaluation methodology
To judge the accuracy of predicted quantities, the error is computed for each response quantity
prediction. For the kth response quantity, the error is defined as
Ek =∑ (F − F )k, j* 2k, j(1)jwhereFk , j :analysis result of kth response quantity at jth floor/story

Fk*,j :

experimental result of kth response quantity at jth floor/story

For quantities which are evaluated at a single floor, j is set to that particular floor level, and nosummation is applied. The total score P is computed from the n computed errors asnP = ∑ wkbk(2)k =1where the value bk for the kth response quantity is as follows: 8 for the lowest error, 5 for the second
lowest, 3 for the third lowest, and 1 for the fourth lowest. The weights wk for each response parameter
will be announced before submission of the pre-test analysis.
The team/individual with maximum total score P will be the winner for each of the two categories.
The judgment will be carried out completely anonymously. Judges will only know the participant
submission name only via an ID number. In each category, up to and including the third place winners
will be announced and the names of all the participants will be asked to disclose their names andaffiliations.

4/5

June 7, 2011

10. Awards
The first-place award winners from each of the two categories will be invited to the 9th International
Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, 2012, held by the Center for Urban Earthquake
Engineering (CUEE), Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan. CUEE will cover the travel,accommodation, and registration expenses for the winners’ participation in the CUEE conference. The
teams with three best results in each category will be reported in the website of CUEE, and will receivea certificate of recognition.

5/5