Post on 28-Dec-2015
Project Collaborators and Contributors:
Derek Skolnik (Sr. Project Engineer, Kinemetrics)Aziz Akhtary (Grad Student Researcher, CSU Fullerton)Leonardo Massone (Assist. Prof. , Univ. of Chile, Santiago)Juan Carlos de la Llerra (Dean, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago)John Wallace (Professor, UCLA)Anne Lemnitzer (Assist. Prof, Cal State Fullerton)
1
Preparation of Instrumentation LayoutsEquipment provided by NEES@UCLA
Instrumentation used:
2
3
4
Buildings selected based on:- Access and permission-Typical design layouts representative for Chile and the US-Local collaborator for building selection: Juan Carlos de la Llerra
Ambient Vibration2 Aftershocks
Ambient Vibration30 Aftershocks
Ambient Vibration4 Aftershocks
5
Building A:
-23 story RC office building in Santiago’s Business district-Structural system: 2 inner cores with surrounding frame- Post Earthquake structural damage: None
6
Instrumentation Layout:
N
Level 1:
Elevators
ElevatorsStai
rway
Glass-facade
DAQ
Roof:
7
Building B:
-10 story RC residential building- Structural system: Shear Walls-Post Earthquake damage: I. Shear wall failure, II.Column buckling, III. Extensive non-structural failure, IV.slab bending & concrete spalling
8
Repetitive Damage at the -1 level (Parking level):Wall-Slab intersections
Observed Damages in the 10 story shear wall building:
9
10
11
12
13
Floor Plan: Ground Floor (-1 Level)
14
Instrumentation on Ground Level:
Triaxial sensor15
Instrumentation Layout: First Floor (shear wall instrumentation)
Instrumented floors:
-Parking Level (-1) : 1 triaxial sensor-2nd floor : 3 triaxial sensors-9th floor : 3 uniaxial sensors-Roof : 3 uniaxial sensors16
Shear Wall Instrumentation
17
Instrumentation Layout: Exemplarily for 2nd floor
3 triaxial sensors
18
3 uniaxial sensors
9th Floor instrumentation:
19
20
Selected aftershock:
2010 05/02 14:52:39 UTC
Earthquake info Chilean Seismic Network
21
40 60 80 100 120
-20
0
20
EW Acceleration
Roo
f (c
m/s
2 )
40 60 80 100 120
-20
0
20
9th
(cm
/s2 )
40 60 80 100 120
-20
0
20
2nd
(cm
/s2 )
40 60 80 100 120
-20
0
20
Grn
d (c
m/s
2 )
40 60 80 100 120
-20
0
20
NS Acceleration
Roo
f (c
m/s
2 )
40 60 80 100 120
-20
0
20
9th
(cm
/s2 )
40 60 80 100 120
-20
0
20
2nd
(cm
/s2 )
40 60 80 100 120
-20
0
20
Grn
d (c
m/s
2 )
Roof
9th
2nd
-1 st
22
40 60 80 100 120
-2
0
2
EW Displacement
Roo
f (m
m)
40 60 80 100 120
-2
0
2
9th
(mm
)
40 60 80 100 120
-2
0
2
2nd
(mm
)
40 60 80 100 120
-2
0
2
Grn
d (m
m)
40 60 80 100 120
-2
0
2
NS Displacement
Roo
f (m
m)
40 60 80 100 120
-2
0
2
9th
(mm
)
40 60 80 100 120
-2
0
2
2nd
(mm
)
40 60 80 100 120
-2
0
2
Grn
d (m
m)
Roof
9th
2nd
-1 st
23
Figure 4: Shear-flexure interaction for a wall subject to lateral loading. (adapted from Massone and Wallace, 2004)
24
40 60 80 100 120
-0.1
0
0.1
LVD
T D
isp
(mm
)
Time (s)40 60 80 100 120
-0.1
0
0.1
LVD
T D
isp
(mm
)
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120
-0.1
0
0.1
LVD
T D
isp
(mm
)
Time (s)40 60 80 100 120
-0.1
0
0.1LV
DT
Dis
p (m
m)
Time (s)
Ver
tical
LV
DT
sD
iago
nal L
VD
Ts
25
The rotation for flexure was taken at the base of the wall (so the top displacement is multiplied by the wall height), which is the largest value expected for flexure. If we assume that the flexure corresponds to a rotation at wall mid-height, the flexural component should be multiplied by 0.5.
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2W
all t
op D
isp
(mm
)
Time (s)
shear
flexure
26
40 60 80 100 120
-10
0
10
Acceleration
EW
(cm
/s2 )
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120
-10
0
10
NS
(cm
/s2 )
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120
-10
0
10
z (c
m/s
2 )
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2Displacement
EW
(cm
)
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
NS
(cm
)
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
z (c
m)
Time (s)
3 triaxial sensors
27
Torsion and rocking
Rocking about the x axis = orientation of shear wall (corresponds to shear wall cracking)
40 60 80 100 120-4
-2
0
2
4x 10
-3 Acceleration
Tor
sion
(ra
d/s2 )
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
Roc
king
abo
ut X
(ra
d/s2 )
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120-4
-2
0
2
4x 10
-3
Roc
king
abo
ut Y
(ra
d/s2 )
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120-5
0
5x 10
-5 Displacement
Tor
sion
(ra
d)
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120-5
0
5x 10
-4
Roc
king
abo
ut X
(ra
d)
Time (s)
40 60 80 100 120-5
0
5x 10
-5
Roc
king
abo
ut Y
(ra
d)
Time (s)
NOTE CHANGE IN SCALE FOR X- AXIS ROCKING
3 triaxial sensors
28
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
EW (mm)
NS
(m
m)
Roof
9th2nd
Ground
29
0 1 2 3 4 50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4x 10
4
FF
T E
W
Freq (Hz)0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4x 10
4
FF
T N
S
Freq (Hz)
Roof
9th
2nd
-1 st
30
-Analysis of more aftershock measurements (Stronger intensities)-Transfer Functions-Further Analysis of Modal Components-Building modeling in commercially available software (e.g., SAP 2000 and others)-Provide data for shear wall research (cyclic model studies)
31
Building C: “Golf”
-10 story office building-Unoccupied except for floors # 2 & 8- Inner core shear wall with outer frame system- No structural damage- 4 parking levels (-1 through -4)- Instrumented floors: 1 & 10- Sensors: 8 accelerometers
32
Building: Golf 80, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile
33
The only earthquake damage observed: Minor glass breaking on outside Fassade
34
Floor plan for typical floor:
35
Foto’s from the inside: 10th floor
36
37
Chilean Seismic Network info for earthquake:
2010-03-26- 14:54:08 UTC
38
Center acc were calculated assuming rigid diaphragms and using the following equations:
v1
u2u1
u0
v0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-4
-2
0
2
4
NS
(cm
/s2 )
Time (s)
Acceleration
10th
1st
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-4
-2
0
2
4
EW
(cm
/s2 )
Time (s)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-4
-2
0
2
4x 10
-3
Tor
(ra
d/s2 )
Time (s)
v2
u4
v2
u3
v3
39
Max values 10th floor:
E_WCenter acc : 3.5 cm/s2Corner acc: 4.3 cm/s2
N_SCenter acc: 2.8 cm/s2Edge: 5.0 cm/s2
Max values 1st floor:
E_WCenter acc : 1.2 cm/s2Corner acc: 1.2 cm/s2
N_SCenter acc: 1.2 cm/s2Corner: 1.2 cm/s2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-4
-2
0
2
4
NS
(cm
/s2 )
Time (s)
Acceleration
10th
1st
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-4
-2
0
2
4
EW
(cm
/s2 )
Time (s)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-4
-2
0
2
4x 10
-3
Tor
(ra
d/s2 )
Time (s)
No Torsion
Torsion40
Max values 10th floor:
E_WCenter acc : 1.15 mmCorner acc: 1.2 mm
N_SCenter acc: 0.74 mmEdge: 1.24mm
Max values 1st floor:
E_WCenter acc : 0.31 mmCorner acc: 0.32 mm
N_SCenter acc: 0.29 mmEdge: 0.29 mm
Perfect rigid body motion at 1st floor
Twisting / Torsion on 10th floor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.1
0
0.1
NS
(cm
)
Time (s)
Displacement
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.1
0
0.1
EW
(cm
)
Time (s)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-5
0
5x 10
-5
Tor
(ra
d)
Time (s)
10th
1st
41
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
EW (mm)
NS
(m
m)
10th
1st
42
0 1 2 3 4 50
20
40
60
NS
1
Freq (Hz)
1st Floor
0 1 2 3 4 50
20
40
60
EW
1
Freq (Hz)
0 1 2 3 4 50
0.005
0.01
0.015
Tor
1
Freq (Hz)
0 1 2 3 4 50
100
200
300
400
500
NS
10
Freq (Hz)
10th Floor
0 1 2 3 4 50
200
400
600
EW
10
Freq (Hz)
0 1 2 3 4 50
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4T
or 1
0
Freq (Hz)
43
• Understanding building modal behavior
• Building modeling and more advanced system identification (e.g., transfer functions) to obtain better modal properties (e.g., damping, mode shapes… if possible)
• Test rigid diaphragm assumption using sensor redundancy on floors (e.g., comparing floor center motions using different subsets of sensors)
•Comprehensive building modeling in SAP 2000 or equivalent software packages
•Data sharing at the NEES platform
44
Airport regulations (invitation letters, label equipment as non stationary)
Trigger and record mechanisms (set minimum recording time vs. EQ duration + Dt)
Instrumentation cabling (<100m, Power supplies)
Time Frame (aftershock span)
Local collaboration (building access, installation, translations)
Equipment Transportation (luggage vs shipping)
Take Pictures of every sensor with reference on it….
45
US Team Members:Anne Lemnitzer (CSUFullerton)Alberto Salamanca (NEES @ UCLA)Aditya Jain (Digitexx)Marc Sereci (Digitexx; EERI team member)John Wallace (UCLA, Instrumentation PI)
Local Graduate Student Members :Matias Chacom, (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)Javier Encina, (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)Joao Maques, (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)
Local Faculty CollaboratorsJuan C. De La Llera M. (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)Leonardo Massone (University of Chile, Santiago)
CO-Pis on the NSF Rapid ProposalRobert Nigbor (UCLA)John Wallace (UCLA)
On Site Instrumentation Team
46
47