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.

Published byCheyenne Stant Modified over 9 years ago

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 nees@berkeley 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) S40.03250.05180.00760.27 S50.03250.05320.01020.20 S70.03250.05320.01020.20

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 S40.0325180.270.0050.018 ≤ 1/ π S50.0325320.200.0050.025 ≤ 1/ π S70.0325320.200.01250.0625 ≤ 1/ π S8--T4=0.100.0050.05 ≤ 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’’ studs @ 96’’ 6’’ nail spacing 7/16” OSB Skin on both sides 2x4’’ studs @ 16’’ Double 2x4’’ studs @ 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]46.212.2 Force Capacity [kip]12.211.4 Ductility7.03.6 Hysteretic Energy [kip-in]201.8193.1

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]12.223.4 Force Capacity [kip]11.49.5 Ductility3.63.5 Hysteretic Energy [kip-in]193.1189.2 Specimen Bottom ver. sliding Bottom gap opening Top ver. Sliding Top gap opening Uplift right Uplift left Tube sliding S20.710.040.730.270.02 S30.490.010.500.140.030.020.03 * 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]22.935.5 Force Capacity [kip]8.615.6 Ductility2.53.7 Hysteretic Energy [kip-in]152.7363.1 Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S4 vs S5) Specimen DEMCE1.5MCE S4S5S4S5S4S5 Peak Disp. (+) 2.71.34.73.5-5.8 Peak Disp. (-) -2.8--3.2-- Residual Disp. 1.50.1-0.8--

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]23.432.7 Force Capacity [kip]9.516.2 Ductility3.54.8 Hysteretic Energy [kip-in]189.2309.9 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]32.733.2 Force Capacity [kip]16.215.5 Ductility4.83.4 Hysteretic Energy [kip-in]309.91077.8 Test Results: Effect of Lateral Loading (S6 vs S7) Specimen S6S7 Peak Disp. (+) 4.73.3 Peak Disp. (-) -4.7-4.2 Residual Disp. 0.00.3

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]35.533.2 Force Capacity [kip]15.615.5 Ductility3.73.4 Hysteretic Energy [kip-in]363.11077.8 Specimen DEMCE1.5MCE S5S7S5S7S5S7 Peak Disp. (+) 1.31.13.52.25.83.3 Peak Disp. (-) -3.2-2.0--4.2 Residual Disp. 0.10.00.80.0-0.3

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. (+) 1.31.13.52.25.83.3 Peak Disp. (-) -3.2-2.0--4.2 Residual Disp. 0.10.00.80.0-0.3 Specimen Bottom ver. sliding Bottom gap opening Top ver. sliding Top gap opening Uplift right Uplift left Tube sliding DE S50.260.020.270.030.080.070.18 S70.230.020.210.020.150.040.02 MCE S50.630.050.640.090.140.120.19 S70.450.030.430.040.530.090.06

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]35.538.3 Force Capacity [kip]15.616.0 Ductility3.74.0 Specimen DEMCE S5S8S5S8 Peak Disp. (+) 1.31.23.52.4 Peak Disp. (-) -1.7-3.2-3.1 Residual Disp. 0.10.00.80.4 Specimen Bottom ver. sliding Bottom gap opening Top ver. sliding Top gap opening Uplift right Uplift left Tube sliding DE S50.260.020.270.030.080.070.18 S80.370.030.370.040.090.110.13 MCE S50.630.050.640.090.140.120.19 S80.650.030.550.050.160.270.14

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

Hybrid Simulation with On-line Updating of Numerical Model Based on Measured Experimental Behavior M. Javad Hashemi, Armin Masroor, and Gilberto Mosqueda.

Hybrid Simulation with On-line Updating of Numerical Model Based on Measured Experimental Behavior M. Javad Hashemi, Armin Masroor, and Gilberto Mosqueda.
An Introduction to Hybrid Simulation – Displacement-Controlled Methods

An Introduction to Hybrid Simulation – Displacement-Controlled Methods
Hybrid simulation evaluation of the suspended zipper braced frame Tony Yang Post-doctoral scholar University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements:

Hybrid simulation evaluation of the suspended zipper braced frame Tony Yang Post-doctoral scholar University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements:
Seismic Performance Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Bridges

Seismic Performance Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Bridges
TASK 1.1.1 SHAKE TABLE TESTS OF A TWO-STORY HOUSE Andre Filiatrault David Fischer Bryan Folz Chia-Ming Uang Frieder Seible CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project,

TASK SHAKE TABLE TESTS OF A TWO-STORY HOUSE Andre Filiatrault David Fischer Bryan Folz Chia-Ming Uang Frieder Seible CUREe-Caltech Woodframe Project,
Experimental Testing of Drift- Sensitive Nonstructural Systems – Year 4 The Pathways Project San Jose State University Equip Site:

Experimental Testing of Drift- Sensitive Nonstructural Systems – Year 4 The Pathways Project San Jose State University Equip Site:
Mechanics Based Modeling of the Dynamic Response of Wood Frame Building By Ricardo Foschi, Frank Lam,Helmut Prion, Carlos Ventura Henry He and Felix Yao.

Mechanics Based Modeling of the Dynamic Response of Wood Frame Building By Ricardo Foschi, Frank Lam,Helmut Prion, Carlos Ventura Henry He and Felix Yao.
Hybrid Wood and Steel System: Overstrength and Ductility

Hybrid Wood and Steel System: Overstrength and Ductility
Development of Self-Centering Steel Plate Shear Walls (SC-SPSW)

Development of Self-Centering Steel Plate Shear Walls (SC-SPSW)
Explosive joining of dissimilar metals: experiment and numerical modeling Anan’ev S.Yu., Andreev A.V., Deribas A.A., Yankovskiy B.D. Joint Institute for.

Explosive joining of dissimilar metals: experiment and numerical modeling Anan’ev S.Yu., Andreev A.V., Deribas A.A., Yankovskiy B.D. Joint Institute for.
ADVANCED DYNAMIC TESTING TECHNIQUES IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING by Andrei M Reinhorn Xiaoyun Shao CIE 616 FALL 2004.

ADVANCED DYNAMIC TESTING TECHNIQUES IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING by Andrei M Reinhorn Xiaoyun Shao CIE 616 FALL 2004.
An Experimental Study and Fatigue Damage Model for Fretting Fatigue

An Experimental Study and Fatigue Damage Model for Fretting Fatigue
Hybrid Simulation with On-line Updating of Numerical Model based on Measured Experimental Behavior M.J. Hashemi, Armin Masroor, and Gilberto Mosqueda University.

Hybrid Simulation with On-line Updating of Numerical Model based on Measured Experimental Behavior M.J. Hashemi, Armin Masroor, and Gilberto Mosqueda University.
Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of.

Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of.
Task 1.4.7 - Innovative Systems Fluid Dampers for Seismic Energy Dissipation of Woodframe Structures Michael D. Symans Kenneth J. Fridley William F. Cofer.

Task Innovative Systems Fluid Dampers for Seismic Energy Dissipation of Woodframe Structures Michael D. Symans Kenneth J. Fridley William F. Cofer.
UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED HYBRID COUPLED WALLS Yahya C. KURAMA University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana Qiang SHEN, Michael MAY (graduate students) Cooperative.

UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED HYBRID COUPLED WALLS Yahya C. KURAMA University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana Qiang SHEN, Michael MAY (graduate students) Cooperative.
Yahya C. Kurama University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S.A

Yahya C. Kurama University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S.A
Konstantinos Agrafiotis

Konstantinos Agrafiotis
UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED HYBRID COUPLED WALLS

UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED HYBRID COUPLED WALLS
Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.

Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google