Accurate real‐time hybrid earthquake simulations on large‐scale MDOF steel structure with nonlinear viscous dampers

This paper presents real‐time hybrid earthquake simulation (RTHS) on a large‐scale steel structure with nonlinear viscous dampers. The test structure includes a three‐story, single‐bay moment‐resisting frame (MRF), a three‐story, single‐bay frame with a nonlinear viscous damper and associated bracing in each story (called damped braced frame (DBF)), and gravity load system with associated seismic mass and gravity loads. To achieve the accurate RTHS results presented in this paper, several factors were considered comprehensively: (1) different arrangements of substructures for the RTHS; (2) dynamic characteristics of the test setup; (3) accurate integration of the equations of motion; (4) continuous movement of the servo‐controlled hydraulic actuators; (5) appropriate feedback signals to control the RTHS; and (6) adaptive compensation for potential control errors. Unlike most previous RTHS studies, where the actuator stroke was used as the feedback to control the RTHS, the present study uses the measured displacements of the experimental substructure as the feedback for the RTHS, to enable accurate displacements to be imposed on the experimental substructure. This improvement in approach was needed because of compliance and other dynamic characteristics of the test setup, which will be present in most large‐scale RTHS. RTHS with ground motions at the design basis earthquake and maximum considered earthquake levels were successfully performed, resulting in significant nonlinear response of the test structure, which makes accurate RTHS more challenging. Two phases of RTHS were conducted: in the first phase, the DBF is the experimental substructure, and in the second phase, the DBF together with the MRF is the experimental substructure. The results from the two phases of RTHS are presented and compared with numerical simulation results. An evaluation of the results shows that the RTHS approach used in this study provides a realistic and accurate simulation of the seismic response of a large‐scale structure with rate‐dependent energy dissipating devices. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Large-scale real-time hybrid simulation for evaluation of advanced damping system performance , 2015 .

[2]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Large‐scale real‐time hybrid simulation of a three‐story steel frame building with magneto‐rheological dampers , 2014 .

[3]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Performance Validations of Semiactive Controllers on Large-Scale Moment-Resisting Frame Equipped with 200-kN MR Damper Using Real-Time Hybrid Simulations , 2014 .

[4]  Victor E. Saouma,et al.  Real-Time Hybrid Simulation of a Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Frame , 2014 .

[5]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Adaptive time series compensator for delay compensation of servo‐hydraulic actuator systems for real‐time hybrid simulation , 2013 .

[6]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Evaluation of a real-time hybrid simulation system for performance evaluation of structures with rate dependent devices subjected to seismic loading , 2012 .

[7]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Tracking Error-Based Servohydraulic Actuator Adaptive Compensation for Real-Time Hybrid Simulation , 2010 .

[8]  James M. Ricles,et al.  HybridFEM: A PROGRAM FOR DYNAMIC TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF 2D INELASTIC FRAMED STRUCTURES AND REAL-TIME HYBRID SIMULATION HybridFEM Version 4.2.4 User's Manual , 2010 .

[9]  O. Mercan,et al.  Real‐time hybrid testing using the unconditionally stable explicit CR integration algorithm , 2009 .

[10]  J. Ricles,et al.  Development of Direct Integration Algorithms for Structural Dynamics Using Discrete Control Theory , 2008 .

[11]  Mark D. Petersen,et al.  United States National Seismic Hazard Maps , 2008 .

[12]  Charles S. Mueller,et al.  Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps , 2008 .

[13]  Juan Carrion,et al.  Model-Based Strategies for Real-Time Hybrid Testing , 2007 .

[14]  P. Benson Shing,et al.  Performance of a real‐time pseudodynamic test system considering nonlinear structural response , 2007 .

[15]  Colin A. Taylor,et al.  Adaptive Control Strategy for Dynamic Substructuring Tests , 2007 .

[16]  Cheng Chen.  Development and numerical simulation of hybrid effective force testing method , 2007 .

[17]  M.I. Wallace,et al.  An adaptive polynomial based forward prediction algorithm for multi-actuator real-time dynamic substructuring , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[18]  Martin S. Williams,et al.  Stability and Delay Compensation for Real-Time Substructure Testing , 2002 .

[19]  Shuenn-Yih Chang,et al.  Explicit Pseudodynamic Algorithm with Unconditional Stability , 2002 .

[20]  Toshihiko Horiuchi,et al.  A new method for compensating actuator delay in real–time hybrid experiments , 2001, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[21]  Y. Namita,et al.  Real‐time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation and its application to a piping system with energy absorber , 1999 .

[22]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  An unconditionally stable hybrid pseudodynamic algorithm , 1995 .

[23]  Pui-Shum B. Shing,et al.  Implicit time integration for pseudodynamic tests , 1991 .

[24]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Integration Techniques for Substructure Pseudo Dynamic Test , 1990 .

[25]  Xxyyzz,et al.  Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , 1990 .

[26]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Computational aspects of a seismic performance test method using on‐line computer control , 1985 .

[27]  Xxyyzz,et al.  Structural Steel for Buildings , 1962 .