Evaluation of integration methods for hybrid simulation of complex structural systems through collapse
This study examines the performance of integration methods for hybrid simulation of large and complex structural systems in the context of structural collapse due to seismic excitations. The target application is not necessarily for real-time testing, but rather for models that involve large-scale physical sub-structures and highly nonlinear numerical models. Four case studies are presented and discussed. In the first case study, the accuracy of integration schemes including two widely used methods, namely, modified version of the implicit Newmark with fixed-number of iteration (iterative) and the operator-splitting (non-iterative) is examined through pure numerical simulations. The second case study presents the results of 10 hybrid simulations repeated with the two aforementioned integration methods considering various time steps and fixed-number of iterations for the iterative integration method. The physical sub-structure in these tests consists of a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) cantilever column with replaceable steel coupons that provides repeatable highlynonlinear behavior including fracture-type strength and stiffness degradations. In case study three, the implicit Newmark with fixed-number of iterations is applied for hybrid simulations of a 1:2 scale steel moment frame that includes a relatively complex nonlinear numerical substructure. Lastly, a more complex numerical substructure is considered by constructing a nonlinear computational model of a moment frame coupled to a hybrid model of a 1:2 scale steel gravity frame. The last two case studies are conducted on the same porotype structure and the selection of time steps and fixed number of iterations are closely examined in pre-test simulations. The generated unbalance forces is used as an index to track the equilibrium error and predict the accuracy and stability of the simulations.
KeywordsHybrid simulation collapse integration methods unbalance forces stability and accuracy numerical errors
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This work was primarily supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant CMMI-0748111 with additional support from the NEES equipment at the University at Buffalo supported by NSF. This support is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, and conclusion or recommendation expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
- Takanashi, K, Udagawa K, Seki M, Okada T and Tanaka H (1975), “Nonlinear Earthquake Response Analysis of Structures by a Computer-actuator On-line System,” Bulletin of Earthquake Resistant Structure Research Centre Google Scholar
- Hashemi MJ, Tsang HH, Al-Ogaidi Y, Wilson JL and Al-Mahaidi R (2017), “Collapse Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Building Columns through Multi-axis Hybrid Simulation”, Structural Journal, 114(02)Google Scholar
- Nakashima M, Kaminosono T and Ishida M (1990), “Integration Techniques for Substructure Pseudodynamic Test,” 4th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs, California.Google Scholar
- Schellenberg AH, Mahin SA and Fenves GL (2009), “Advanced Implementation of Hybrid Simulation,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, U.S.Google Scholar
- Dermitzakis SN and Mahin SA, (1985) “Development of Substructuring Techniques for On-line Computer Controlled Seismic Performance Testing,” Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley, US.Google Scholar
- OpenSees (2015) “The Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, UC Berkeley, U.S.Google Scholar
- OpenFresco (2015) “The Open-source Framework for Experimental Setup and Control,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, UC Berkeley, U.S.Google Scholar
- Newmark NM (1959), “A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 67.Google Scholar
- Dorka UE and Heiland D (1991), “Fast Online Earthquake Utilizing a Novel PC Supported Measurement and Control Concept,” 4th Conference on Structural DynamicsSouthampton, UKGoogle Scholar
- Zhong W (2005), “Fast Hybrid Test System for Substructure Evaluation,” PhD Dissertation, University of Colorado Boulder, U.S.Google Scholar
- The MathWorks Inc. (2014), “MATLAB R2014b,” Massachusetts, U.S.Google Scholar
- Filiatrault A, Tinawi R and Leger P (1992) “The Use of Energy Balance in Nonlinear Seismic Analysis,” 10th World Conference in Earthquake EngineeringMadrid, Spain.Google Scholar
- Schellenberg A, Huang Y and Mahin SA (2008), “Structural FE-software Coupling Through the Experimental Software Framework, OpenFresco,” 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.Google Scholar