![Page 1: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated
Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing
SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHER KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PISHAKHZOD TAKHIROV, S ITE OPERATIONS MANA GER
nees@berkeley
QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
![Page 2: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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
![Page 3: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Setup
Reconfigurable Reaction Wall
Loading Steel Tube
Specimen
Gravity Loading
Actuator
Support beam
![Page 4: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Setup
![Page 5: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Setup and Specimen
![Page 6: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Specimen
7/16” OSB Skins 3-5/8” EPS Insulating Foam
![Page 7: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Instrumentation
Left Uplift Right
Uplift
Bottom vertical sliding
Top vertical sliding
Bottom gap opening
Top gap openingTube
sliding
![Page 8: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Matrix
Specimen Protocol Gravity Nail spacing [in] RemarksS1 CUREE No 6 Conventional wood panelS2 CUREE No 6 -S3 CUREE Yes 6 -S4 HS Yes 6 Near-fault pulse-type GMS5 HS Yes 3 Near-fault pulse-type GMS6 CUREE Yes 3 -S7 HS Yes 3 Long duration, harmonic GMS8 HS Yes 3 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 of1. Compare the responses of conventional wood panel vs SIPs
![Page 9: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Hybrid SimulationSpecimens S4, S5, S7 c
m
Specimen m (kip-sec2/in) ξ k (kip/in) c (kip-sec/in) T (sec)
S4 0.0325 0.05 18 0.0076 0.27S5 0.0325 0.05 32 0.0102 0.20S7 0.0325 0.05 32 0.0102 0.20
![Page 10: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Hybrid Simulation
c=αmm
m
m
m
u1
Experimental DOF
u2
u3
c=αm
c=αm
c=αmAnalytical DOF
force-displacement relation from previous tests
Specimen S8
![Page 11: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Hybrid Simulation: Numerical Integration
Specimen m k T (sec) dt (sec) dt/TS4 0.0325 18 0.27 0.005 0.018 ≤ 1/πS5 0.0325 32 0.20 0.005 0.025 ≤ 1/πS7 0.0325 32 0.20 0.0125 0.0625 ≤ 1/πS8 - - T4=0.10 0.005 0.05 ≤ 1/π
• Explicit Newmark Integration with γ=0.5• Does not require iterations• Does not require knowledge of initial experimental stiffness
![Page 12: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
0 10 20 30-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8A
cc (g
)Los Gatos, Loma Prieta, 1989
0 10 20 30-20
-10
0
10
20
Vel
(in/
sec)
0 10 20 30-5
0
5
Time (sec)
Dis
p (in
/sec
)
0 25 50 75 100
-0.5
0
0.5
Vinadel Mar, Chile, 1985
0 25 50 75 100-20
-10
0
10
20
0 25 50 75 100-5
0
5
Time (sec)
PGD = 3.87 in
PGV = 20.0 in/s
PGA = 0.61 g
PGV = 11.9 in/s
PGD = 4.53 in
PGA = 0.54 g
Near
faul
t, pu
lse-ty
pe G
M
Long
dur
atio
n, h
arm
onic
GM
Hybrid Simulation: Ground Motions
![Page 13: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Global Parameters
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ip]
Full-HistoryEnvelope
• Initial stiffness =fi /di• Force capacity = fc• Ductility =du/dy• Hysteretic energy = fdx
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ip]
envelope
di, fi
dc, fcdy, fy
du, 0.75fc
dp, fp
dn, fn
• Positive peak displacement = dp• Negative peak displacement = dn• Residual displacement
![Page 14: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Local Parameters
Top 2x6 Displ
Top Vertical Displ
Bottom Vertical Displ
Bottom Horizontal Displ
Bottom left 2x6 Displ
Bottom Right 2x6 Displ
Top Horizontal Displ
Tube sliding
Top ver. disp
Top hor. disp
Bottom hor. disp
Bottom ver. disp
Right upliftLeft uplift
Top horizontal gap opening
Bottom horizontal gap opening
Bottom vertical sliding
Right upliftLeft uplift
Top vertical sliding
Tube sliding
Peaks of local responses
![Page 15: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15QUAKE 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’’ studs @ 96’’• 6’’ nail spacing
• 7/16” OSB Skin on both sides• 2x4’’ studs @ 16’’• Double 2x4’’ studs @ the ends• 6’’ nail spacing
Cyclic Testing with CUREE protocol
![Page 16: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2)
Specimen S1 S2
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 46.2 12.2
Force Capacity [kip] 12.2 11.4
Ductility 7.0 3.6
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 201.8 193.1
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20Fo
rce
[kip
s]
Displacement [inch]
S1 (Conventional wood panel)S2 (SIPs)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
b) Effect ofgravity loading
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
c) Effect ofloading type
![Page 17: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2)
Exterior Temp: -0.4 F
Double 2x4 studs
2x4 studs @ 16
OSB
Double 2x4 studs
EPS
Interior Temp: 69.8 F
OSBOSB
Exterior Temp: -0.4 F
Interior Temp: 69.8 F
R-factor: 3.49
S1 S2 S1 S2
cavity
14.10
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
![Page 18: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18QUAKE 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
![Page 19: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Gravity Loading (S2 vs S3)
Specimen S2 S3
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 12.2 23.4
Force Capacity [kip] 11.4 9.5
Ductility 3.6 3.5
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 193.1 189.2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S2 (No gravity)S3 (Gravity)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
Specimen Bottom ver. sliding
Bottom gap opening
Top ver. Sliding
Top gap opening
Uplift right
Uplift left
Tube sliding
S2 0.71 0.04 0.73 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.02
S3 0.49 0.01 0.50 0.14 0.03 0.02 0.03* All units in inches
![Page 20: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20QUAKE 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”
![Page 21: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Specimen S4 S5
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 22.9 35.5
Force Capacity [kip] 8.6 15.6
Ductility 2.5 3.7
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 152.7 363.1
Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S4 vs S5)-6 -3 0 3 6
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S4 (6" nail spc.)S5 (3" nail spc.)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S5S8
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
Specimen DE MCE 1.5MCES4 S5 S4 S5 S4 S5
Peak Disp. (+) 2.7 1.3 4.7 3.5 - 5.8
Peak Disp. (-) -2.8 -1.0 - -3.2 - -
Residual Disp. 1.5 0.1 - 0.8 - -
![Page 22: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22QUAKE 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
![Page 23: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Specimen S3 S6
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 23.4 32.7
Force Capacity [kip] 9.5 16.2
Ductility 3.5 4.8
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 189.2 309.9
Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S3 vs S6)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
Displacement [inch]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5 (No analytical substructure)S8 (Analytical substructure)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20Fo
rce
[kip
s]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S4 (6" nail spc.)S5 (3" nail spc.)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S5S8
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
S3S6
![Page 24: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24QUAKE 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”
0 10 20 30-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
Acc
(g)
Los Gatos, Loma Prieta, 1989
0 10 20 30-20
-10
0
10
20
Vel
(in/
sec)
0 10 20 30-5
0
5
Time (sec)
Dis
p (in
/sec
)
0 25 50 75 100
-0.5
0
0.5
Vinadel Mar, Chile, 1985
0 25 50 75 100-20
-10
0
10
20
0 25 50 75 100-5
0
5
Time (sec)
PGD = 3.87 in
PGV = 20.0 in/s
PGA = 0.61 g
PGV = 11.9 in/s
PGD = 4.53 in
PGA = 0.54 g
0 10 20 30-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
Acc
(g)
Los Gatos, Loma Prieta, 1989
0 10 20 30-20
-10
0
10
20
Vel
(in/
sec)
0 10 20 30-5
0
5
Time (sec)
Dis
p (in
/sec
)
0 25 50 75 100
-0.5
0
0.5
Vinadel Mar, Chile, 1985
0 25 50 75 100-20
-10
0
10
20
0 25 50 75 100-5
0
5
Time (sec)
PGD = 3.87 in
PGV = 20.0 in/s
PGA = 0.61 g
PGV = 11.9 in/s
PGD = 4.53 in
PGA = 0.54 g
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Time [sec]
Dis
plac
emen
t [in
ch]
![Page 25: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Specimen S6 S7
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 32.7 33.2
Force Capacity [kip] 16.2 15.5
Ductility 4.8 3.4
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 309.9 1077.8
Test Results: Effect of Lateral Loading (S6 vs S7)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
S6 (CUREE)S7 (HS)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
Specimen S6 S7Peak Disp. (+) 4.7 3.3Peak Disp. (-) -4.7 -4.2
Residual Disp. 0.0 0.3
![Page 26: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26QUAKE 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”
0 10 20 30-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
Acc
(g)
Los Gatos, Loma Prieta, 1989
0 10 20 30-20
-10
0
10
20
Vel
(in/
sec)
0 10 20 30-5
0
5
Time (sec)
Dis
p (in
/sec
)
0 25 50 75 100
-0.5
0
0.5
Vinadel Mar, Chile, 1985
0 25 50 75 100-20
-10
0
10
20
0 25 50 75 100-5
0
5
Time (sec)
PGD = 3.87 in
PGV = 20.0 in/s
PGA = 0.61 g
PGV = 11.9 in/s
PGD = 4.53 in
PGA = 0.54 g
0 10 20 30-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
Acc
(g)
Los Gatos, Loma Prieta, 1989
0 10 20 30-20
-10
0
10
20
Vel
(in/
sec)
0 10 20 30-5
0
5
Time (sec)
Dis
p (in
/sec
)
0 25 50 75 100
-0.5
0
0.5
Vinadel Mar, Chile, 1985
0 25 50 75 100-20
-10
0
10
20
0 25 50 75 100-5
0
5
Time (sec)
PGD = 3.87 in
PGV = 20.0 in/s
PGA = 0.61 g
PGV = 11.9 in/s
PGD = 4.53 in
PGA = 0.54 g
![Page 27: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vs S7)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
S5 (Pulse-type)S7 (Harmonic)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
Specimen S5 S7
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 35.5 33.2
Force Capacity [kip] 15.6 15.5
Ductility 3.7 3.4
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 363.1 1077.8
SpecimenDE MCE 1.5MCE
S5 S7 S5 S7 S5 S7Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.1 3.5 2.2 5.8 3.3Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.0 -3.2 -2.0 - -4.2Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 - 0.3
![Page 28: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vs S7)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
S5 (Pulse-type)S7 (Harmonic)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
SpecimenDE MCE 1.5MCE
S5 S7 S5 S7 S5 S7Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.1 3.5 2.2 5.8 3.3Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.0 -3.2 -2.0 - -4.2
Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 - 0.3
Specimen Bottom ver. sliding
Bottom gap opening
Top ver. sliding
Top gap opening
Uplift right
Uplift left
Tube sliding
DE S5 0.26 0.02 0.27 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.18S7 0.23 0.02 0.21 0.02 0.15 0.04 0.02
MCE S5 0.63 0.05 0.64 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.19S7 0.45 0.03 0.43 0.04 0.53 0.09 0.06
![Page 29: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29QUAKE 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
c=αmm
m
m
m
u1
Experimental DOF
u2
u3
c=αm
c=αm
c=αmAnalytical DOF
Hybrid Simulation with Analytical Substructure (S8)
m c
![Page 30: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Analytical Substructuring (S5 vs S8)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5 (No analytical substructure)S8 (Analytical substructure)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
Specimen S5 S8
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 35.5 38.3
Force Capacity [kip] 15.6 16.0
Ductility 3.7 4.0
SpecimenDE MCE
S5 S8 S5 S8Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.2 3.5 2.4Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.7 -3.2 -3.1
Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4
Specimen Bottom ver. sliding
Bottom gap opening
Top ver. sliding
Top gap opening
Uplift right
Uplift left
Tube sliding
DE S5 0.26 0.02 0.27 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.18S8 0.37 0.03 0.37 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.13
MCE S5 0.63 0.05 0.64 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.19S8 0.65 0.03 0.55 0.05 0.16 0.27 0.14
![Page 31: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31QUAKE 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.
![Page 32: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32QUAKE 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.
![Page 33: Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062501/568164ce550346895dd6f4fd/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Thank you
33QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012