Multi-dimensional Mixed-mode Hybrid Simulation Control and Applications

Hybrid simulation is an effective method for the assessment of the seismic response of structures, combining laboratory testing, computational simulation, and numerical time-step integration of the equations of motion. While this approach has been used for evaluation of the seismic performance of a variety of structures, applications to date have been limited to planar loading and to relatively simple structural systems. In contrast, actions during strong earthquakes are three-dimensional and continuously varying and modern structures can be extremely complex. Further development is required to evaluate the seismic performance of structures, in particular complex structural systems, under realistic loading. The objectives of this study are to develop a multi-dimensional hybrid simulation framework using a six-actuator, self-reaction, loading system, referred to as the Load and Boundary Condition Box (LBCB), for evaluation of the seismic performance of large and complex structural systems and to demonstrate the framework through three-dimensional hybrid simulation of a skew reinforced concrete (RC) bridge. This report contains results for four major tasks that are intended to provide enhanced seismic performance evaluation using advance experimental techniques. The first task is the calibration of the LBCB in global Cartesian coordinates. Due to imperfections in system geometry (e.g., the actuator configuration), errors in the Cartesian measurements are generated from errors in the transformation from actuator to Cartesian space. A sensitivity-based external calibration method is developed to improve the precision by which the LBCB can be controlled in Cartesian space. The second task is to develop, implement, and experimentally verify a mixed load and displacement (mixed-mode) control strategy. A mixed-mode control capability is required, for example, to simulate gravity loads in the axial direction and displacements in the other directions on structural members such as RC piers in hybrid simulation. However, because of the nonlinear nature of the coordinate transformation, mixed-mode control for a multi-axial loading system is still a major theoretical and practical challenge. The mixed-mode control strategy developed in this study accounts for the spatial interaction of actuators both in displacement and load, and the stiffness variation of the structure specimen. The third task is to integrate the control system and its capabilities into a hybrid simulation framework. The framework needs to also incorporate robust network communication for hybrid simulation. The fourth and final task is to validate the hybrid simulation framework through the study of the three-dimensional behavior of a skew RC bridge. First, extensive analyses of skew bridges are conducted to prepare for the hybrid simulation. Subsequently, a smallscale RC pier is experimentally tested as a physical substructure, while the rest of the piers and the bridge deck are analyzed using a finite element model. The mixed-mode control capability is employed to impose on the RC pier simultaneous gravity loads in the axial direction and earthquake-induced displacements in the other directions. The experimental results show that the multi-dimensional hybrid simulation with versatile six degrees-of-freedom loading capability is a promising approach that provides a reliable means for evaluation of the seismic performance of large and complex structural systems.

[1]  C. D. Meyer,et al.  Generalized inverses of linear transformations , 1979 .

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

[3]  Amr S. Elnashai Assessment of seismic vulnerability of structures , 2006 .

[4]  Emmanuel A. Maragakis,et al.  Analytical models for the rigid body motions of skew bridges , 1987 .

[5]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Modelling of material non‐linearities in steel structures subjected to transient dynamic loading , 1993 .

[6]  H Krawinkler SCALE EFFECTS IN STATIC AND DYNAMIC MODEL TESTING OF STRUCTURES , 1988 .

[7]  Akira Igarashi,et al.  Simulated Seismic Laboratory Load Testing of Full-Scale Buildings , 1996 .

[8]  Eric M. Lui,et al.  Refined Stick Model for Dynamic Analysis of Skew Highway Bridges , 2002 .

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

[10]  Anshel J. Schiff Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake of January 17, 1995 : lifeline performance , 1999 .

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

[12]  W. K. Tso,et al.  Seismic analysis of skewed highway bridges with intermediate supports , 1973 .

[13]  D. H. Lee,et al.  Zeus NL - A System for Inelastic Analysis of Structures , 2004 .

[14]  R. Dexter,et al.  MULTI-AXIAL SUBASSEMBLAGE TESTING ( MAST ) SYSTEM : DESCRIPTION AND CAPABILITIES , 2002 .

[15]  Alex K. Tang,et al.  IZMIT (Kocaeli), Turkey, Earthquake of August 17, 1999, including Duzce Earthquake of November 12, 1999: Lifeline Performance , 2000 .

[16]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Use of Partially Prestressed Reinforced Concrete Columns to Reduce Post-Earthquake Residual Displacements of Bridges , 2006 .

[17]  Shigeki Unjoh,et al.  The Damage of Highway Bridges in the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake and its Impact on Japanese Seismic Design , 1997 .

[18]  Makoto Ohsaki,et al.  Development of peer‐to‐peer (P2P) internet online hybrid test system , 2006 .

[19]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  Implications of Recent Earthquakes on Seismic Risk , 2000 .

[20]  Mark Yashinsky Chapter B. The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989 - Highway Systems , 1998 .

[21]  P. Benson Shing,et al.  Application of Pseudodynamic Test Method to Structural Research , 1996 .

[22]  Reginald DesRoches,et al.  A Hertz contact model with non‐linear damping for pounding simulation , 2006 .

[23]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  RATE-OF-LOADING EFFECTS ON PSEUDODYNAMIC TESTS , 1988 .

[24]  Motohiko Hakuno,et al.  REAL TIME DYNAMIC TEST ON A MODEL PILE FOUNDATION , 1972 .

[25]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  A new passive confinement model for the analysis of concrete structures subjected to cyclic and transient dynamic loading , 1992 .

[26]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  MIXED LOAD / DISPLACEMENT CONTROL STRATEGY FOR HYBRID SIMULATION , 2006 .

[27]  Eric M. Lui,et al.  Seismic analysis and assessment of a skew highway bridge , 2000 .

[28]  Narutoshi Nakata,et al.  Multi-Dimensional Hybrid Simulation Using a Six-Actuator Self-Reaction Loading System , 2008 .

[29]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Highway Bridges , 2001 .

[30]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  EFFECT OF MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUT MOTION CHARACTERISTICS ON SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS OF RC BRIDGE PIERS , 1996 .

[31]  Michel Bruneau,et al.  Performance of Buildings , 2000 .

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

[33]  Thomas J. R. Hughes,et al.  Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics , 1977 .

[34]  David P. Billington,et al.  Analysis of Seismic Failure in Skew RC Bridge , 1991 .

[35]  Gupta,et al.  EFFECTIVENESS OF SEISMIC ISOLATION OF HIGHLY SKEWED P/C I-GIRDER BRIDGE. TECHNICAL NOTE , 2001 .

[36]  B. G. Nielson Analytical Fragility Curves for Highway Bridges in Moderate Seismic Zones , 2005 .

[37]  Bruce I. Cohen,et al.  Implicit time integration for plasma simulation , 1982 .

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

[39]  Hamid Ghasemi,et al.  Analytical and experimental study of a skew bridge model , 2004 .

[40]  Motohiko Hakuno,et al.  DYNAMIC DESTRUCTIVE TEST OF A CANTILEVER BEAM, CONTROLLED BY AN ANALOG-COMPUTER , 1969 .

[41]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Non‐planar pseudodynamic testing , 1995 .

[42]  Habib J. Dagher,et al.  Nonlinear FE Analyses of RC Skewed Slab Bridges , 1995 .

[43]  Paul C. Jennings,et al.  Engineering features of the San Fernando earthquake of February 9, 1971 , 1971 .

[44]  Shervin Maleki,et al.  Deck modeling for seismic analysis of skewed slab-girder bridges , 2002 .

[45]  Georges Magonette,et al.  Bi‐directional pseudodynamic test of a full‐size three‐storey building , 1999 .

[46]  Stephen A. Mahin,et al.  Pseudodynamic Method for Seismic Testing , 1985 .

[47]  Georges Magonette Development and application of large–scale continuous pseudo–dynamic testing techniques , 2001, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[48]  Σταυροσ Δερμιτζακησ,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTRUCTURING TECHNIQUES FOR ON-LINE COMPUTER CONTROLLED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE TESTING , 1985 .

[49]  Amr S. Elnashai,et al.  ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT OF AN IRREGULAR RC FRAME FOR FULL-SCALE 3D PSEUDO-DYNAMIC TESTING PART I: ANALYTICAL MODEL VERIFICATION , 2005 .

[50]  M. Nakashima,et al.  Japanese Activities on On‐Line Testing , 1987 .

[51]  Paolo Negro,et al.  Pseudodynamic Capabilities of the ELSA Laboratory for Earthquake Testing of Large Structures , 1996 .

[52]  Tomisaku Mizusawa,et al.  Analysis of skew plate problems with various constraints , 1980 .

[53]  Harry W. Shenton,et al.  Load Distribution for a Highly Skewed Bridge: Testing and Analysis , 2004 .