slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Presented by Bob Nigbor

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 41

Presented by Bob Nigbor - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 104 Views
  • Uploaded on

NEES Aftershock Monitoring of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Santiago, Chile following the February 27, 2010 Mw=8.8 Earthquake. Presented by Bob Nigbor. Project Collaborators and Contributors: Aziz Akhtary (Grad Student Researcher, CSU Fullerton)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Presented by Bob Nigbor' - jaegar


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

NEES Aftershock Monitoring of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Santiago, Chile following the February 27, 2010 Mw=8.8 Earthquake

Presented by

Bob Nigbor

Project Collaborators and Contributors:

Aziz Akhtary (Grad Student Researcher, CSU Fullerton)

Juan Carlos de la Llerra (Dean, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago)

Anne Lemnitzer (Assist. Prof, Cal State Fullerton)

Leonardo Massone (Assist. Prof. , Univ. of Chile, Santiago)

Bob Nigbor ([email protected] co-PI & Manager)

Derek Skolnik (Sr. Project Engineer, Kinemetrics)

John Wallace (Professor, UCLA and [email protected] PI)

slide2

Preparation of Instrumentation Layouts

Equipment provided by [email protected]

Instrumentation used:

instrumented buildings

Instrumented Buildings

  • Buildings selected based on:
  • Access and permission
  • EERI Recon Team input
  • Typical design layouts representative for Chile and the US
  • Local collaborator for building selection: Juan Carlos de la Llerra

Located in Santiago, Chile

Ambient Vibration

Ambient Vibration

2 Aftershocks

Ambient Vibration

30 Aftershocks

Ambient Vibration

4 Aftershocks

slide5

Chile RAPID Instrumentation Team

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 :

MatiasChacom, (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)

Javier Encina, (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)

Joao Maques, (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)

Local Faculty Collaborators

Juan C. De La Llera M. (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)

Leonardo Massone (University of Chile, Santiago)

CO-PIs on the NSF Rapid Proposal

Robert Nigbor (UCLA)

John Wallace (UCLA)

slide6

Building B:

  • -10 story RC residential building
  • - Structural system:
  • Shear Walls
  • Post Earthquake damage:
  • Shear wall failure,
  • Column buckling,
  • Extensive non-structural failure,
  • slab bending & concrete spalling
slide7

Observed Damage in the 10 story shear wall building:

Repetitive Damage at the -1 level (Parking level):

Wall-Slab intersections

slide13

Story Displacements

Roof

9th

2nd

-1 st

shear and flexure deformations
Shear and Flexure Deformations

Figure 4: Shear-flexure interaction for a wall subject to lateral loading. (adapted from Massone and Wallace, 2004)

lvdt measurements
LVDT Measurements

Vertical LVDTs

Diagonal LVDTs

shear and flexure deformations1
Shear and flexure deformations

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.

2 nd floor responses
2nd floor responses

Torsion and rocking

NOTE CHANGE IN SCALE FOR X- AXIS ROCKING

3 triaxial sensors

Rocking about the x axis = orientation of shear wall (corresponds to shear wall cracking)

lessons learned in chile turkey deployments
Lessons Learned in Chile & Turkey Deployments
  • Airport regulations (invitation letters, label equipment as non stationary)
  • Trigger and record mechanisms (Continuous for short duration, triggered for longer)
  • Instrumentation cabling (<100m, Power supplies)
  • Time Frame (ambient + aftershocks, can be 1-day or months)
  • Battery power is workable
  • Local collaboration essential (building access, installation, translations)
  • Equipment Transportation (baggage is simple if possible)
nees@ucla post earthquake collaboration possibilities
[email protected] Post Earthquake Collaboration Possibilities
  • [email protected] can mobilize quickly – 2 weeks this first time
  • Cost is subsidized by NEES O&M funding (Chile RAPID was $29k)
  • Recommended as a resource for EERI LFE
  • We have prepared two 24-channel SHM Systems for rapid deployment
    • 8 triaxial EpiSensors
    • 4 Q330s
    • Slate field computer or “netbook” PC
    • Car battery power, batteries in-country
    • GPS timing
    • Ethernet connectivity
    • Fits in 4 50-lb suitecases
slide21
Funding Opportunity – 2011 NEES Research RFP~$10M Annually, 2011 Deadline March 9www.nees.org/neesrproposalonestopshop
slide23

9th Floor instrumentation:

3 uniaxial sensors

slide27

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 sensors
2 nd floor responses1
2nd floor responses

3 triaxial sensors

slide29
FFTs

Roof

9th

2nd

-1 st

slide30

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
accelerations floor 1 10
Accelerations Floor 1 & 10

u2

u1

v0

v1

v2

q0

u0

u4

u3

v2

v3

Center acc were calculated assuming rigid diaphragms and using the following equations:

accelerations floor 1 101

Max values 1st floor:

E_W

Center acc : 1.2 cm/s2

Corner acc: 1.2 cm/s2

N_S

Center acc: 1.2 cm/s2

Corner: 1.2 cm/s2

Accelerations Floor 1 & 10

No Torsion

Max values 10th floor:

E_W

Center acc : 3.5 cm/s2

Corner acc: 4.3 cm/s2

N_S

Center acc: 2.8 cm/s2

Edge: 5.0 cm/s2

Torsion

displacements floor 1 10
Displacements Floor 1 & 10

Max values 1st floor:

E_W

Center acc : 0.31 mm

Corner acc: 0.32 mm

N_S

Center acc: 0.29 mm

Edge: 0.29 mm

Perfect rigid body motion at 1st floor

Max values 10th floor:

E_W

Center acc : 1.15 mm

Corner acc: 1.2 mm

N_S

Center acc: 0.74 mm

Edge: 1.24mm

Twisting / Torsion on 10th floor

ad