UCSD, PCA - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 37
About This Presentation
Title:

UCSD, PCA

Description:

UCSD, PCA – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:355
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 38
Provided by: pla134
Category:
Tags: pca | ucsd | gaff

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: UCSD, PCA


1
UCSD, PCA NEESBLIND PREDICTION
CONTESTIntroductory Remarks
Robert Bachman, S.E. Convener REBachman
Consulting Structural Engineers
2
Test Facility and Test Structure
  • 7 Story full-scale building slice
  • Reinforced concrete structural wall
  • NEES Large High- Performance Outdoor Shake Table
    at UCSDs Englekirk Structural Engineering Center

3
Outline of this Session
  • Description of Test Facility, Design of Test
    Structure and Testing Program and Discussion of
    Test Results
  • Overview of Blind Prediction Contest, Entries and
    the computer platforms they used
  • Comparison of Range of Predicted Values with
    Measured
  • Announcement of Winners
  • Presentation by Contest Winners of Approach Used

4
DESCRIPTION OF TEST PROGRAM Marios Panagiotou,
José I. Restrepo, Joel P. Conte and Robert
EnglekirkDepartment of Structural
EngineeringUniversity of California, San Diego
5
Acknowledgments
  • Two-phase Project funded by the Englekirk
    Structural Engineering Center Board of Advisors
  • Yehuda Bock, SIO, Payload Project Partner
  • J.E. Luco, SE UCSD, Payload Project Partner and
    Advisor
  • Ozgur Ozcelik, Graduate Strudent
  • Bobak Moaveni, Graduate Student
  • The assistance of NEESinc, NEESit, NSF and of
    Paul Somerville (URS Corp.) are greatly
    appreciated

6
Englekirk Board of Advisors
7
Objective
  • Verify the seismic performance of medium rise
    reinforced concrete residential wall building
    designed for lateral forces that are
    significantly smaller than those currently
    specified in building codes in United States
  • UBC 97 Seven story building
  • Residential, multi-wall structure
  • Sc soils
  • Site less than 2 km from B fault
  • Sv 55 in./sec.

Los Angeles
V 0.29 W Base Shear
8
Displacement-based Design
  • Two performance levels
  • Immediate occupancy in frequently occurring
    earthquakes
  • Limited yielding (1 tensile strain maximum)
  • Limiting interstory drift ratio
  • Life-safety in rare earthquakes (10 in 50)
  • Tensile strains less than 5 compressive strain
    less than 1

9
Displacement-based Design
  • Based on initial stiffness and an effective first
    mode mass
  • Direct use of the Displacement Response Spectra
    for elastic response
  • Considers the relationship between
    inelastic-elastic response of SDOF (Miranda 90
    percentile)
  • Definition of curvature and displacement
    ductility
  • Strain limits for concrete and reinforcement
  • Foundation flexibility

V 0.15 W Base Shear
10
Capacity Design
  • To guarantee the desired performance at the
    Life-prevention level
  • Explicit selection of a mechanism of inelastic
    deformation
  • Explicit recognition of effects caused higher
    modes of response
  • Larger than forces obtained from DBD analysis
    (1st mode!)
  • Larger floor accelerations

11
Test Structure
  • 7-story building slice with cantilever wall as
    the lateral force resisting system
  • Tallest building structure ever tested on a
    shaketable
  • Single axis of input ground motion in the plane
    of the wall

PT wall
Gravity columns
Flange wall
63-0 21 m
Cantilever web wall
  • Phase 1 Testing
  • 12 ft. long rectangular wall
  • Phase 2 Testing
  • 14 ft. 7 in. long T-wall

12
(No Transcript)
13
Design Summary Detailing
Web Wall Level 1
8 (204 mm)
12-0 (3.6 m)
rl 0.44 rt 0.31 rv 1.36
Web Wall Level 2
6 (152 mm)
rl 0.60 rt 0.31 rv 0
14
Design Summary Detailing
  • Aimed at Construction optimization
  • 1 reinforcement curtain in the walls web on
    level 1
  • Well confined wall ends
  • High-strength Baugrid electro-welded confinement
    reinforcement at wall ends
  • 1 reinforcement curtain on levels 2-7
  • Tunnel form construction
  • Concrete with specified compressive strength of
  • fc 4 ksi (28 MPa)

15
Test Regime
  • Testing at the NEES_at_UCSD Large High-Performance
    Outdoor Shake Table between October 2005 and
    January 2006
  • Structure tested under increase intensity
    historical earthquake records and with
    low-intensity band-clipped white noise in between
    earthquake tests

Acceleration (g)
0
20
Time (sec)
16
Acceleration Response Spectra
Design spectra
x5
17
Sensors
  • 600 sensors deployed on the building, shake
    table and surrounding soil
  • DC Coupled Accelerometers
  • Displacement transducers
  • Strain gauges
  • Load cells
  • Oil pressure transducers
  • First time use of 50Hz, 3 mm resolution,
    real-time GPS displacement sensors
  • 17 videos feeds streamed through NEEScentral

18
EQ4
Test EQ4PGA 0.93g
19
EQ4
20
Buildings Response to Sylmar Earthquake EQ4
  • Performance levels anticipated were met
  • Cosmetic damage at the base of the wall
  • Reinforcement strains reached 2.7
  • Peak roof-drift ratio was 2.1
  • Residual crack widths less than 1/20th of an inch
  • Negligible residual displacements (1/2 in. at the
    roof )
  • The building slice could perhaps not be
    immediately occupied but only required minimum
    repairs

21
Data Curing Archiving
  • Significant amount of data has been collected and
    is being reduced
  • All data and metadata will be archived in the
    NEES Data Repository and will be made available
    to all NEES users and researchers

22
(No Transcript)
23
BLIND PREDICTION CONTESTScoring, Comparison of
Predicted vs Measured Quantities and Winners
Robert Bachman, S.E. Convener REBachman
Consulting Structural Engineers
24
Overview of Contest
  • Web site set up included links to test
    structure data, test motions, contest rules,
    input sheet and questions/answers
  • NEES email addresses set up for Q/A and entries
  • Contest announced March 10th via electronic
    communications (PCA, NEES, the NSF EQ Centers,
    EERI), Structural Engineers Associations and
    personal communications
  • Q A posted periodically on web site
  • Entries were due electronically May 15th
  • Winners notified by May 25th

25
Basic Contest Rules
  • Goal predict responses by analysis - compare
    with measured
  • 3 Categories of teams Winner PCA Award of
    2500 per team
  • 1. Undergraduates
  • 2. Researchers/Academics
  • 3. Engineering Practitioners
  • Predict responses for 4 levels of earthquakes
    responses included displacements, drifts, shears,
    moments, accelerations throughout the structures
    and vertical strains near base.
  • Entries judged by determining error in each type
    of response Lowest error awarded points. Sum
    points. Largest sum winner
  • The entries were handled confidentially folks
    at UCSD did not know who submitted what entries.
    Relative ranking confidential.

26
Scoring Procedure - Mean Square root error index
Ai measured (actual) response quantity
Pi predicted response quantity
Team score



Interstory
Residual
Total points

d
Team i
M
V
ü
/ g
drift ratio
drift ratio
i
i
i
i
4
1
8
4
8
8
33
1




16

0
0
2
8
4
2
2






19


2
8
4
2
2
1
3





12
4
1
4
1
1
1
4





10
8
2
0
0
0
0
5





27
Entries / Computer Platforms
  • 21 total entries/ 8 countries
  • Undergraduates 2 teams / 2 countries
  • Countries Italy and US
  • Computer Platforms Etabs and
    SeismoStruct
  • Researchers/Academics 11 teams / 8 countries
  • Countries Canada, France, Italy,
    Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, Taiwan, US
  • Computer Platforms Abaqus, Canny,
    Column, Fedeas Lab, Narc2004, OpenSees,
    Ruaumoko, Sap 2000
  • Engineering Practitioners 8 teams / 2 countries
  • Countries New Zealand and US
  • Computer Platforms Adina, ANSR-II, Hand
    Calculator/code formulas, OpenSees, PC-ANSR,
    Ram Perform 3-D

28
Undergraduate Entries
  • Italy Laura Quaglini
  • Advisor Dr. Rui Pinho
  • University of Pavia
  • US Michael Billings, Soyoon Lee and
    Evan Peterman
  • Advisor Prof. Ansgar Neuenhofer
  • Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

29
Researcher/Academic Entries
  • Canada Alireza Ahmdina and Carlos Ventura
  • France Stephane Grane, Panagiotis Kotronis
    and Jacky Mazars
  • Italy/US Paolo Martinelli and Filip Filippou
  • Mexico Mario Rodriquez, Roque Sanchez and
    Miguel Torres
  • New Zealand Dion Marriot, Kam Yuen Yuen,
    Stefano Pampanin and Athol
    Carr
  • Slovenia Matej Fischinger, Peter Kante and
    Tatjana Isakovic
  • Taiwan Kuang-Yen Liu
  • US/SUNY Buffalo Methee Chiewanichakorn and
    Amjad Aref
  • US/Univ of Washington Blake Doekper, Laura
    Lowes and Dawn Lehman
  • US/Univ of Missouri at KC Kavitra Deshmukh,
    Ganesh Thiagarajan, Thomas Heausler
  • US/Iowa State University Jon Waugh and Sri
    Sritharan

30
Engineering Practitioner Entries
  • Nikolay Doumbalski, MMI, Oakland, CA
  • Rick Drake, JSDyer, Anaheim, CA
  • Mahmoud Hachem, Emeryville, CA
  • Jimin Huang, HDR Engr, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Trevor Kelly, Holmes Consulting Group, New
    Zealand
  • Bruce Maison, EBMUD, El Cerrito, CA
  • David Nilles,PE. SE., Washougal, WA
  • Jianxia Zhong, Y.L. Mo, Paul Jacob and Turel Gur
    mostly from MMI in Houston, Texas

31
Selected Comparison of Selected Measured versus
Predicted Responses (Top 4 in Researcher/Academic
and Engineer Practitioner Categories)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
Key Finding
  • The M Factor

37
And the Winners Are Drum Roll Please !
Undergraduate Team Winner 
Cal Poly San Luis Obispo  represented by Michael
Billings
Researcher/Academic Team winner
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia represented
by Matej Fischinger
and Engineer Practitioner winner
Mahmoud Hachem of Wiss, Janney, Elstner,
Emeryville, California
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com