seismic performance evaluation of energy efficient structural insulated panels (sips) using hybrid...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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 MANAGER
nees@berkeley
QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
![Page 2: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Setup
![Page 5: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Setup and Specimen
![Page 6: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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 opening
Tube sliding
![Page 8: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Matrix
Specimen Protocol Gravity Nail spacing [in] Remarks
S1 CUREE No 6 Conventional wood panel
S2 CUREE No 6 -
S3 CUREE Yes 6 -
S4 HS Yes 6 Near-fault pulse-type GM
S5 HS Yes 3 Near-fault pulse-type GM
S6 CUREE Yes 3 -
S7 HS Yes 3 Long duration, harmonic GM
S8 HS Yes 3Near-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 of
1. Compare the responses of conventional wood panel vs SIPs
![Page 9: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Hybrid Simulation
Specimens S4, S5, S7c
m
Specimen m (kip-sec2/in) ξ k (kip/in) c (kip-sec/in) T (sec)
S4 0.0325 0.05 18 0.0076 0.27
S5 0.0325 0.05 32 0.0102 0.20
S7 0.0325 0.05 32 0.0102 0.20
![Page 10: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Hybrid Simulation: Numerical Integration
Specimen m k T (sec) dt (sec) dt/T
S4 0.0325 18 0.27 0.005 0.018 ≤ 1/π
S5 0.0325 32 0.20 0.005 0.025 ≤ 1/π
S7 0.0325 32 0.20 0.0125 0.0625 ≤ 1/π
S8 - - 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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
fault
, puls
e-t
ype G
M
Long d
ura
tion, harm
onic
G
M
Hybrid Simulation: Ground Motions
![Page 13: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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]
Fo
rce
[kip
]
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]
Fo
rce
[kip
]
envelope
di, f
i
dc, f
cdy, f
y
du, 0.75f
c
dp, f
p
dn, f
n
• Positive peak displacement = dp
• Negative peak displacement = dn
• Residual displacement
![Page 14: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
20F
orce
[ki
ps]
Displacement [inch]
S1 (Conventional wood panel)
S2 (SIPs)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2
S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
For
ce [
kips
]
S3
S4-6 -3 0 3 6
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4
S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
S5
S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5
S8
b) Effect ofgravity loading
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
c) Effect ofloading type
![Page 17: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
OSB
OSB
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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
For
ce [
kips
]
S1
S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
S2 (No gravity)
S3 (Gravity)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
For
ce [
kips
]
S3
S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4
S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
S5
S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5
S8
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
SpecimenBottom ver.
slidingBottom gap
openingTop 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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
For
ce [
kips
]
S1
S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2
S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S3
S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
S4 (6" nail spc.)
S5 (3" nail spc.)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
S5
S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S5
S8
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
SpecimenDE MCE 1.5MCE
S4 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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
For
ce [
kips
]
S1
S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2
S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
For
ce [
kips
]
Displacement [inch]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4
S5
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
S5
S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
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
20F
orce
[ki
ps]
S1
S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2
S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S3
S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
S4 (6" nail spc.)
S5 (3" nail spc.)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
S5
S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S5
S8
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
S3
S6
![Page 24: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
pla
cem
en
t [in
ch]
![Page 25: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
For
ce [
kips
]
S1
S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2
S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
For
ce [
kips
]
S3
S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4
S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5
S8
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 S7
Peak Disp. (+) 4.7 3.3
Peak Disp. (-) -4.7 -4.2
Residual Disp. 0.0 0.3
![Page 26: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
For
ce [
kips
]
S1
S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2
S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
For
ce [
kips
]
S3
S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4
S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5
S8S5 (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 S7
Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.1 3.5 2.2 5.8 3.3
Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.0 -3.2 -2.0 - -4.2
Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 - 0.3
![Page 28: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
For
ce [
kips
]
S1
S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2
S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
For
ce [
kips
]
S3
S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4
S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5
S8S5 (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 S7
Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.1 3.5 2.2 5.8 3.3
Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.0 -3.2 -2.0 - -4.2
Residual Disp.
0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 - 0.3
SpecimenBottom ver.
slidingBottom gap
openingTop ver. sliding
Top gap opening
Uplift right
Uplift left
Tube sliding
DES5 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
MCES5 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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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)
mc
![Page 30: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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
For
ce [
kips
]
S1
S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2
S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
For
ce [
kips
]
S3
S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4
S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
S5
S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
For
ce [
kips
]
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 S8
Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.2 3.5 2.4
Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.7 -3.2 -3.1
Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4
SpecimenBottom ver.
slidingBottom gap
openingTop ver. sliding
Top gap opening
Uplift right
Uplift left
Tube sliding
DES5 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
MCES5 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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/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: Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c755503460f9492933d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Thank you
33QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012