Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

number of actuators requires a more complex control strategy. The structure wassubjected to two tests (with PGA of 0.15g and 0.20g) each test with one accelerogramin each direction. Illustrative results from the second test (0.20g) are given in Fig. 5,which shows rather different column drift histories resulting from the induced torsionof the building. Detailed analysis of the test results and test set-up can be foundelsewhere (Negro, 2004).HERCEG NOVI 0.2g COLUMN DRIFTHERCEG NOVI 0.2g COLUMN DRIFT808060604040Drift Y [mm]200-20C7Drift Y [mm]200-20C3-40-40-60-60-80-80-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Drift X [mm]Drift X [mm]Figure 5. Second storey X and Y direction drifts for two external cornercolumns.5.2 Integration of Numerical and Experimental SimulationsAnother major advancement in testing techniques was obtained by the developmentof non-linear substructuring techniques in PSD testing.ELSA already had a long experience on PSD testing with substructuring inapplication to bridges. PSD testing with linear substructuring was successfullyapplied to bridges at ELSA in the mid ’90s (Pegon, 2000). A series of PSD tests wereperformed on regular and irregular bridges designed according to the Eurocodes, withthe three piers of the model-bridge built and physically tested and the deck simulatednumerically with linear FEM. The test campaign comprised also isolation solutions totackle the irregularity problem and addressed the issue of asynchronous input motion(Pinto, 1996). An extension of this technique is the use of non-linear models for thenumerical parts of the structure — “non-linear substructuring”.Figure 6. PSD testing with substructuring: application to bridges: test setup andEQ demands.290