Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL."— Presentation transcript:

1 Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHER KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI SHAKHZOD TAKHIROV, SITE OPERATIONS MANAGER QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012

2 2 Introduction Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) are composite panels for energy efficient construction Composed of an energy-efficient core placed in between facing materials Their application in seismically hazardous regions is limited due to unacceptable performance as demonstrated by cyclic testing Limited number of tests with more realistic dynamic loading regimes Hybrid simulation is ideal to test SIPs with a variety of structural configurations and ground motion excitations

3 3 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Setup Reconfigurable Reaction Wall Loading Steel Tube Specimen Gravity Loading Actuator Support beam

4 4 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Setup

5 5 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Setup and Specimen

6 6 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Specimen 7/16” OSB Skins 3-5/8” EPS Insulating Foam

7 7 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Instrumentation Left Uplift Right Uplift Bottom vertical sliding Top vertical sliding Bottom gap opening Top gap opening Tube sliding

8 8 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Matrix SpecimenProtocolGravityNail spacing [in]Remarks S1CUREENo6Conventional wood panel S2CUREENo6- S3CUREEYes6- S4HSYes6Near-fault pulse-type GM S5HSYes3Near-fault pulse-type GM S6CUREEYes3- S7HSYes3Long duration, harmonic GM S8HSYes3 Near-fault GM; 3 stories computational substructure A parameter related to the design and construction of panels: Nail spacing Parameters related to loading Presence of gravity loading Lateral loading: CUREE protocol vs HS Type of ground motion (Pulse type vs Long duration, harmonic) A parameter related to HS: presence of an analytical substructure 2.Investigate the effects of 1.Compare the responses of conventional wood panel vs SIPs

9 9 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Hybrid Simulation Specimens S4, S5, S7 c m Specimenm (kip-sec 2 /in)ξk (kip/in)c (kip-sec/in)T (sec) S S S

10 10 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Hybrid Simulation c= α m m m m m u1u1 Experimental DOF u2u2 u3u3 c= α m Analytical DOF force-displacement relation from previous tests Specimen S8

11 11 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Hybrid Simulation: Numerical Integration SpecimenmkT (sec)dt (sec)dt/T S ≤ 1/ π S ≤ 1/ π S ≤ 1/ π S8--T4= ≤ 1/ π Explicit Newmark Integration with γ=0.5 Does not require iterations Does not require knowledge of initial experimental stiffness

12 12 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Near fault, pulse-type GMLong duration, harmonic GM Hybrid Simulation: Ground Motions

13 13 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Global Parameters Initial stiffness =f i /d i Force capacity = f c Ductility =d u /d y Hysteretic energy = Positive peak displacement = d p Negative peak displacement = d n Residual displacement

14 14 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Local Parameters Peaks of local responses

15 15 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2) SIPs (S2) Conventional Wood Frame (S1) 7/16’’ OSB Skin on both sides 3-5/8” EPS Insulating Foam Panel to panel thermal connections Double 2x4’’ 96’’ 6’’ nail spacing 7/16” OSB Skin on both sides 2x4’’ 16’’ Double 2x4’’ the ends 6’’ nail spacing Cyclic Testing with CUREE protocol

16 16 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2) SpecimenS1S2 Initial Stiffness [kip/in] Force Capacity [kip] Ductility Hysteretic Energy [kip-in]

17 17 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2) Heat transfer analysis using THERM 6.3: A software developed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for modeling and analyzing heat-transfer effects in building components S1 (Conventional wood) S2 (SIPs) S1 S2

18 18 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Gravity Loading (S2 vs S3) No gravity loading (S2) Gravity loading (S3) Cyclic Testing with CUREE protocol

19 19 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Gravity Loading (S2 vs S3) SpecimenS2S3 Initial Stiffness [kip/in] Force Capacity [kip] Ductility Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] Specimen Bottom ver. sliding Bottom gap opening Top ver. Sliding Top gap opening Uplift right Uplift left Tube sliding S S * All units in inches

20 20 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S4 vs S5) Nail Spacing: 6”(S4) Nail Spacing: 3”(S5) Hybrid Simulation with Pulse-type GM 3” 6”

21 21 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 SpecimenS4S5 Initial Stiffness [kip/in] Force Capacity [kip] Ductility Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S4 vs S5) Specimen DEMCE1.5MCE S4S5S4S5S4S5 Peak Disp. (+) Peak Disp. (-) Residual Disp

22 22 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S3 vs S6) Nail Spacing: 6”(S3) Nail Spacing: 3”(S6) 3” 6” Cyclic Testing with CUREE protocol

23 23 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 SpecimenS3S6 Initial Stiffness [kip/in] Force Capacity [kip] Ductility Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S3 vs S6) S3 S6

24 24 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Lateral Loading (S6 vs S7) Cyclic Testing with CUREE Protocol for Ordinary GM (S6) Hybrid Simulation with Long Duration, Harmonic GM (S7) Nail spacing: 3”

25 25 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 SpecimenS6S7 Initial Stiffness [kip/in] Force Capacity [kip] Ductility Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] Test Results: Effect of Lateral Loading (S6 vs S7) Specimen S6S7 Peak Disp. (+) Peak Disp. (-) Residual Disp

26 26 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vs S7) Hybrid Simulation with Pulse-Type GM (S5) Hybrid Simulation with Long Duration, Harmonic GM (S7) Nail spacing: 3”

27 27 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vs S7) SpecimenS5S7 Initial Stiffness [kip/in] Force Capacity [kip] Ductility Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] Specimen DEMCE1.5MCE S5S7S5S7S5S7 Peak Disp. (+) Peak Disp. (-) Residual Disp

28 28 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vs S7) Specimen DEMCE1.5MCE S5S7S5S7S5S7 Peak Disp. (+) Peak Disp. (-) Residual Disp Specimen Bottom ver. sliding Bottom gap opening Top ver. sliding Top gap opening Uplift right Uplift left Tube sliding DE S S MCE S S

29 29 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Analytical Substructuring (S5 vs S8) Hybrid Simulation with no Analytical Substructure (S5) Pulse-type GM Hybrid Simulation with Analytical Substructure (S8)

30 30 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Test Results: Effect of Analytical Substructuring (S5 vs S8) SpecimenS5S8 Initial Stiffness [kip/in] Force Capacity [kip] Ductility Specimen DEMCE S5S8S5S8 Peak Disp. (+) Peak Disp. (-) Residual Disp Specimen Bottom ver. sliding Bottom gap opening Top ver. sliding Top gap opening Uplift right Uplift left Tube sliding DE S S MCE S S

31 31 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Concluding Remarks Finite element heat transfer analyses quantitatively show the thermal insulation efficiency of SIPs compared to conventional wood panels. Effect of nail spacing is significant on the structural performance of SIPs.

32 32 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012 Concluding Remarks Although the global and local responses of SIPs with and without analytical substructuring are not dramatically different, there is a need for analytical substructuring for a more realistic representation. Hybrid simulation provides the force-deformation envelope that can also be gathered from a cyclic test. But it also provides response values, where the cyclic test would require complimentary analytical simulations to get the response values.

33 Thank you 33 QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012


Download ppt "Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google