## 3 Results and Analysis of the Shaking-Table Test
### Earthquake Response of the Test Model Analysis  
#### 3.5.1 Floor Acceleration Response  
Figure 21 shows under 0.1 g one-way and two-way input of the four types of ground motion under the action of the rigid and soft soil layer interval-shock in the X-direction (acceleration response maximum direction), the acceleration amplification coefficient of contrast. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Peak** & **Ground Motion** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mesa Peak** \\ **Acceleration (g)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Soil-Surface** \\ **Peak** \\ **Acceleration (g)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Amplification** \\ **Coefficient of** \\ **Foundation Soil** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} TMZ270 \\ ELC180 \\ CYC285 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.078 & 0.104 & 1.333 \\
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} ELC180 \\ CYC285 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.085 & 0.105 & 1.235 \\ \hline
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} HIK090 \\ TAP032E \\ FUK090 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.097 & 0.107 & 1.103 \\
0.089 &
\begin{tabular}{c} TAP032E \\ FUK090 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.098 & 0.111 & 1.133 \\
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} YPT060 \\ TCU036E \\ TCU063E \\ \end{tabular} & 0.087 & 0.113 & 1.299 \\
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} TCU036E \\ TCU063E \\ \end{tabular} & 0.109 & 0.136 & 1.248 \\
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} ILA004N \\ ILA055N \\ ARC172 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.095 & 0.163 & 1.716 \\
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} ILA005N \\ ARC172 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.097 & 0.166 & 1.711 \\
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} TMZ270 \\ ELC180 \\ CYC285 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.107 & 0.177 & 1.029 \\
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} ILA1080 \\ TAP032E \\ FUK090 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.202 & 0.239 & 1.183 \\
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} ILA004N \\ ILA055N \\ ARC172 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.190 & 0.278 & 1.418 \\
0.1 g &
\begin{tabular}{c} ILA05N \\ ILA055N \\ ARC172 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.192 & 0.261 & 1.359 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Components under the action of earthquake-based ground motion acceleration amplification factor of foundation soil (X). As shown in Figure 21, (1) for a rigid foundation, the acceleration amplification coefficients of the bottom and upper substructures increase with the increase in the number of floors. In addition, the decrease in the acceleration amplification coefficient is obvious in the isolation layer, and the sound of the one-way input fields and numerical case is close. In the case of a soft soil foundation, the acceleration amplification coefficient of the upper structure increases with the number of floors; however, the performance first decreases, and on the top floor, the performance stabilizes, and the one-way input ground motion is the same. (2) A 0.1 g two-way input in near-field ground motion under the action of ordinary, working condition of rigid-two-way and soft soil-structure of the lower part of the maximum acceleration amplification factor are slightly bigger than the rigid-one-way and soft soil-unidirectional condition, respectively. In the case of the far-field common ground motion, the working condition of the rigid-bidirectional maximum acceleration amplification factor is slightly larger than that of the lower structure under the unidirectional condition. In addition, the working condition of the soft soil-bidirectional amplification coefficient is slightly less than that of the unidirectional soft soil amplification coefficient. Thus, we speculate that the bidirectional input common ground motion increases in the practical test-layer structure between lower rigidity of the structure of the acceleration response; however, the lower part of the soft soil foundation acceleration response of the structure could either increase or decrease. (3) In 0.1 g of the double input of the long-period ground motion, the acceleration amplification coefficient value of the upper structure on rigid foundation and unidirectional input is close, whereas the amplification coefficient on soft soil foundation is slightly less than for the one-way input.