Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
FULL-SCALE LABORATORY TESTING: STRATEGIES ANDPROCEDURES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF PBEEArtur PINTO ∗ , Paolo NEGRO ∗ , Fabio TAUCER ∗ABSTRACTPerformance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) and Risk Assessment are recalled in view of thedefinition of structural testing procedures and protocols. A few tests performed at ELSA insupport of the European Design Code (Eurocode 8) and on assessment and retrofit of existingstructures are summarized. As examples of more advanced testing techniques, a brief review of3D tests performed on an in-plan irregular building and of Pseudo-dynamic (PSD) tests withnonlinear substructuring carried out on bridges is made. The contribution and role of testing tothe challenging development and implementation of PBSD are addressed.Keywords: Performance and risk assessment; Earthquake-testing protocols; Eurocode 8;Calibration tests; PSD tests; 3D pseudo-dynamic tests; Hybrid (physical/numerical) onlinesimulation.1. INTRODUCTIONEarthquake testing has always played a central role in the development of earthquakeengineering (EE) research and practice. There are primary aspects related tovalidation of modeling and analysis procedures, together with aspects related tostructural innovation (new materials, assemblages, etc.), which often require theadoption of laboratory experimentation.In Europe there is a specific case of intensive use of experimental facilities andassociated numerical exploitation of experimental results for the calibration of theEuropean Norms for design (Eurocode 8 for seismic design), whose enforcement isforeseen for 2007. Contrarily to most of the existing codes worldwide, Eurocodes arenew codes, not built on any specific existing code, and embody many innovations,including a clear statement on performance requirements and compliance criteria (seedetails in (Fardis, 2004)). There was therefore a need to check performance ofstructures designed to Eurocodes and to check capacities and limit-state requirements.In fact, since the beginning of the 90’s a large experimental research work has beencarried out in Europe, at the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA)∗ ELSA Laboratory, Joint Research Center, European Commission, 21020 Ispra (VA), Italy281
eaction-wall laboratory of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and at many otherlaboratories and universities equipped with shaking-tables and other testing facilities.The near future challenge of the experimental facilities is how to respond to theneeds of Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE), more specificallyPerformance-Based Seismic Design, and ultimately, how to contribute to thedevelopment and implementation of a future generation of design codes based onperformance concepts. The primary issue for experimentalists and associatedresearchers is to fully understand the concepts of PBEE, concerning capacityassessment, demand and multi-level performance verification. There are severalaspects to take into account, as component, assemblage and structure testing shouldbe thoroughly considered. Regarding ‘structure testing’, there is a need to defineappropriate testing protocols, which include loading type, intensity and test sequence,together with any variables representative and relevant to the control of performance,on the basis of realistic loading conditions for different test levels. Intensity, sequenceand number of tests represent a compromise between an ideally refinedresponse/capacity evaluation and the need to limit the number of sequential tests onthe same model causing unrealistic cumulative damage. This requires a closeinteraction between various actors, namely experimentalists and analysts.In order to meet the requirements of PBSD there is also a need for experimentalfacilities capable to handle complex structures and systems, including 3Dearthquake response, to understand real effects of phenomena like soil-structureinteraction (SSI) and to combine physical and numerical testing online and offline ina sort of 'real-virtual testing environment' where local and global, point andfield digital measuring and visualization systems and corresponding processing canprovide detailed information on demands and on the corresponding consequences,namely type and evolution of physical damage.2. PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGNSeismic design has experienced a substantial evolution in the last 50 years achievingthe fundamental objective of life safety and accepting/incorporating solutions andtechnologies that enable critical facilities to remain operational after major seismicevents. The present seismic design codes state clear objectives in terms of life safety(strength and ductility requirements), which can be mostly achieved, and state alsoobjectives in terms of damage control that are typically checked indirectly, meaningthat damage control checks are derived from demands based on the values calculatedfrom ultimate limit states.As economical aspects are also becoming overriding objectives in our societies,measurable consequences of earthquakes, such as structural and non-structuraldamage (e.g., repair costs) in earthquake events, as well as other economicalconsequences (e.g., loss of operation/revenue) and ‘non-measurable’ consequences,such as social impacts (quality of life), should be considered in the planning anddesign of our infrastructures, living and production facilities. As a matter of fact, the282
- Page 246 and 247: to allow a quantitative assessment
- Page 248 and 249: Cornell A. C., F. Jalayer, R. Hambu
- Page 250 and 251: limited possibilities of overcoming
- Page 252 and 253: uildings, up to five stories high (
- Page 254 and 255: Efficiency η, %100806040203D-RWBW-
- Page 256 and 257: Table 1. Performance criteria for c
- Page 258 and 259: Because the analytical model strong
- Page 260 and 261: REFERENCESAguilar, G., R. Meli, R.
- Page 262 and 263: tests of its type ever conducted. T
- Page 264 and 265: end work-point to work-point). And
- Page 266 and 267: Fig. 5 shows the actual application
- Page 268 and 269: 3Roof Disp. (mm)250200150100500-50-
- Page 270 and 271: Base Shear (kN)Base Shear (kN)40002
- Page 272 and 273: 8. CONCLUSIONSBased on the test and
- Page 274 and 275: REAL-TIME DYNAMIC HYBRID TESTING OF
- Page 276 and 277: :::::2004) can be formulated using
- Page 278 and 279: The structure to be simulated is di
- Page 280 and 281: measurements, to the modeling of th
- Page 282 and 283: Figure 8. Two stories (left) and hy
- Page 284 and 285: ROLES OF LARGE-SCALE TEST FOR ASSES
- Page 286 and 287: mid-height in the third story, at w
- Page 288 and 289: cycles were repeated for each ampli
- Page 290 and 291: the tests with ALC panels were excl
- Page 292 and 293: the relationship between the moment
- Page 294 and 295: attachment details adopted for inst
- Page 298 and 299: economic losses resulting from the
- Page 300 and 301: 4. OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOME OF STRUCT
- Page 302 and 303: 15001000500Shear [kN]0-8.0 -6.0 -4.
- Page 304 and 305: 5.1 3D Tests on a Torsionally Unbal
- Page 306 and 307: Non-linear substructuring was recen
- Page 308 and 309: PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT — FR
- Page 310 and 311: 4 x 50 m = 200 mC1 C2 C3h u = 7 mh
- Page 312 and 313: some procedures are (contrary to th
- Page 314 and 315: 5 th floor disp. [cm]0.60.0-0.6CC =
- Page 316 and 317: While the global drift of the build
- Page 318 and 319: the use of such connections in eart
- Page 320 and 321: I d = 0.25elastic limitmaximum resi
- Page 322 and 323: As regards the influence of differe
- Page 324 and 325: ON GROUND MOTION DURATION AND ENGIN
- Page 326 and 327: time between the first and last acc
- Page 328 and 329: FyFyFyFFFkk0.03kδδδcover a large
- Page 330 and 331: T5b, T13a, T13b, T20a and T20b can
- Page 332 and 333: Tabled results show that in the cas
- Page 334 and 335: 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Dkin PfSa[g]0 0.25
- Page 336 and 337: ON DRIFT LIMITS ASSOCIATED WITH DIF
- Page 338 and 339: BehaviourElasticInelasticCollapseDa
- Page 340 and 341: Other factors such as the applied l
- Page 342 and 343: 4. MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES4.1 Ducti
- Page 344 and 345: 5Ductility factor432100 0.2 0.4 0.6
eaction-wall laboratory <strong>of</strong> the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and at many otherlaboratories and universities equipped with shaking-tables and other testing facilities.The near future challenge <strong>of</strong> the experimental facilities is how to respond to theneeds <strong>of</strong> Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE), more specificallyPerformance-Based Seismic Design, and ultimately, how to contribute to thedevelopment and implementation <strong>of</strong> a future generation <strong>of</strong> design codes based onperformance concepts. The primary issue for experimentalists and associatedresearchers is to fully understand the concepts <strong>of</strong> PBEE, concerning capacityassessment, demand and multi-level performance verification. There are severalaspects to take into account, as component, assemblage and structure testing shouldbe thoroughly considered. Regarding ‘structure testing’, there is a need to defineappropriate testing protocols, which include loading type, intensity and test sequence,together with any variables representative and relevant to the control <strong>of</strong> performance,on the basis <strong>of</strong> realistic loading conditions for different test levels. Intensity, sequenceand number <strong>of</strong> tests represent a compromise between an ideally refinedresponse/capacity evaluation and the need to limit the number <strong>of</strong> sequential tests onthe same model causing unrealistic cumulative damage. This requires a closeinteraction between various actors, namely experimentalists and analysts.In order to meet the requirements <strong>of</strong> PBSD there is also a need for experimentalfacilities capable to handle complex structures and systems, including 3Dearthquake response, to understand real effects <strong>of</strong> phenomena like soil-structureinteraction (SSI) and to combine physical and numerical testing online and <strong>of</strong>fline ina sort <strong>of</strong> 'real-virtual testing environment' where local and global, point andfield digital measuring and visualization systems and corresponding processing canprovide detailed information on demands and on the corresponding consequences,namely type and evolution <strong>of</strong> physical damage.2. PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGNSeismic design has experienced a substantial evolution in the last 50 years achievingthe fundamental objective <strong>of</strong> life safety and accepting/incorporating solutions andtechnologies that enable critical facilities to remain operational after major seismicevents. The present seismic design codes state clear objectives in terms <strong>of</strong> life safety(strength and ductility requirements), which can be mostly achieved, and state alsoobjectives in terms <strong>of</strong> damage control that are typically checked indirectly, meaningthat damage control checks are derived from demands based on the values calculatedfrom ultimate limit states.As economical aspects are also becoming overriding objectives in our societies,measurable consequences <strong>of</strong> earthquakes, such as structural and non-structuraldamage (e.g., repair costs) in earthquake events, as well as other economicalconsequences (e.g., loss <strong>of</strong> operation/revenue) and ‘non-measurable’ consequences,such as social impacts (quality <strong>of</strong> life), should be considered in the planning anddesign <strong>of</strong> our infrastructures, living and production facilities. As a matter <strong>of</strong> fact, the282