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

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

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:

Seismic Performance Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Bridges

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Konstantinos Agrafiotis

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.

Patricia M. Clayton University of Washington

Development of a Flexible Platform for Real-time Hybrid Simulation Oya Mercan, Ph.D Assistant Professor, University of Toronto Quake Summit 2012 July 9-12,

Experimental & Analytical Studies of Drilled Shaft Bridge Columns Sandrine P. Lermitte, PhD Student Jonathan P. Stewart, Assistant Professor John W. Wallace,

Department for ENGINEERING STRUCTURES Professor Vlado MICOV, Ph.D Head of Department.

University of Minho School of Engineering ISISE, Departament of Civil Engineering Uma Escola a Reinventar o Futuro – Semana da Escola de Engenharia - 24.

1 LEHIGH MODEL ATLSS Engineering Research Center Lehigh University Version 1.2.

Level (m-1 ) Level m h (1-c)h ch Rigid Beam x1x1 x k1k1 k2k2 knkn kHkH RC AND SRC SHEAR WALL MACRO-MODELING l Multiple Vertical Line.

Partially Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls

Nonlinear response- history analysis in design practice RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE November 2007 Joe Maffei.

Dynamics Free vibration: Eigen frequencies

Feb. 19, 2008 CU-NEES 2008 FHT Workshop Simulation and Control Aspects of FHT M. V. Sivaselvan CO-PI CU-NEES Assistant Professor Dept. of Civil, Environmental.

MCE 561 Computational Methods in Solid Mechanics

Colorado State University

Stu Nishenko, Khalid Mosalam, Shakhzod Takhirov, and Eric Fujisaki SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF INSULATORS IN ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS.

Quake Summit 2012 July 9-12, 2012, Boston

Virtual Experiments for Teaching Hysteretic Structural Behavior Shirley J. Dyke, Nestor Castaneda, and Zach Feinstein Washington University in St. Louis.

NEES Equipment Site University of Minnesota Multi-Axial Subassemblage Testing (MAST) 6 Degree-of-Freedom (DOF) Control Technology Ability.

CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SEISMIC ANALYSIS USING ARTIFICIAL ACCELEROGRAMS

Cheng Chen Ph.D., Assistant Professor School of Engineering San Francisco State University Probabilistic Reliability Analysis of Real-Time Hybrid Simulation.

NEESR: Near-Collapse Performance of Existing Reinforced Concrete Structures Presented by Justin Murray Graduate Student Department of Civil and Environmental.

Static Pushover Analysis

TOPICS COVERED Building Configuration Response of Concrete Buildings

Analyses of Bolted Joint for Shear Load with Stainless Steel Bushing and Frictionless Shim-Flange Interface Two cases of shim plates were investigated.

The 5th Tongji-UBC Symposium on Earthquake Engineering

1 NEESR Project Meeting 22/02/2008 Modeling of Bridge Piers with Shear-Flexural Interaction and Bridge System Response Prof. Jian Zhang Shi-Yu Xu Prof.

Hybrid Simulation of Structural Collapse

Building Fun You will have 30 minutes to build the strongest structures you can with only the materials you are provided with. Explain to the class the.

Tall Building Initiative Response Evaluation Helmut Krawinkler Professor Emeritus Stanford University On behalf of the Guidelines writers: Y. Bozorgnia,

Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames Charles Roeder (PI) Dawn Lehman, Jeffery Berman (co-PI) Stephen Mahin (co-PI Po-Chien Hsiao.

Mahadevan (Lanka) Ilankatharan Adviser: Professor Bruce Kutter

C ONSIDERATION OF C OLLAPSE AND R ESIDUAL D EFORMATION IN R ELIABILITY-BASED P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION OF B UILDINGS Chiun-lin WU 1, Chin-Hsiung LOH 2,

Villanova University Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering CEE 3704 Statistical and Numerical Analysis 1 Group Project #2 Energy Dissipation Capacity.

IN MODULAR CONSTRUCTIONS

Greg Deierlein, Paul Cordova, Eric Borchers, Xiang Ma, Alex Pena,

CABER Project Update February 22, 2008

BASICS OF DYNAMICS AND ASEISMIC DESIGN

The Mechanical Simulation Engine library An Introduction and a Tutorial G. Cella.

University of Illinois Contribution Amr S. Elnashai Sung Jig Kim Curtis Holub Narutoshi Nakata Oh Sung Kwon Seismic Simulation and Design of Bridge Columns.

Kenneth O’Neill Experimental Investigation of Circular Concrete Filled Steel Tube Geometry on Seismic Performance.

NCSX Modular Coil Joint Load/Stress Calculation By Leonard Myatt Myatt Consulting, Inc.

Seismic Performance of New and Older CBFs Dawn Lehman and Charles Roeder (PIs) Po-Chien Hsiao (GSRs) University of Washington.

INTRODUCTION Due to Industrial revolution metro cities are getting very thickly populated and availability of land goes on decreasing. Due to which multistory.

Bassam A. Izzuddin* and Bassam A. Burgan†

QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012

SHERINE RAJ AP/CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF SCD

Aristotelis Charalampakis and Vlasis Koumousis

M. Z. Bezas, Th. N. Nikolaidis, C. C. Baniotopoulos

C. E. Meyer, United States Geological Survey Thesis defense:

Earthquake resistant buildings

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF MICROPILE SYSTEMS

Presentation transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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