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