Advertisement

Pseudo-Dynamic Test for Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis using Shake Tables

  • Minwoo Chang
  • Jae Kwan Kim
Structural Engineering
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents an effective pseudo-dynamic (PSD) test method for analyzing the response of a multi degree of freedom structural system. In addition to the physical and numerical substructuring of the structure, the effect of the soil-structure interaction (SSI) is numerically modeled without a large soil box. The governing equation is separated into those for the superstructure and the base. These are coupled equations that can be solved recursively with the prediction of the superstructure acceleration, for which polynomial extrapolation is employed. The input for the structure is then obtained by solving the coupled equilibrium equations for experimental and analytically modeled systems. The restoring force applied underneath the superstructure is measured and used to update the superstructure acceleration. The stability condition for the proposed method is investigated, revealing a longer range of the convergence criterion than the Newmark explicit method. The implicit feature of the proposed method enables PSD tests irrespective of the modal properties, if the sampling frequency condition is satisfied. Additionally, the amplitude decay and period elongation are investigated for accuracy comparison in the structural responses. A series of PSD tests are performed using a two degree of freedom shear-building model to validate the proposed method. The experiment is performed on one part of the physical structure, while a numerical simulation is performed on the other part of the structure and on the SSI. The test results confirm that the proposed PSD algorithm is reliable for simulating the substructure and SSI effect.

Keywords

pseudo-dynamic test shake table soil-structure interaction polynomial extrapolation stability condition substructure test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahmadizadeh, M., Mosqueda, G., and Reinhorn, A. M. (2008). “Compensation of actuator delay and dynamics for real–time hybrid structural simulation.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 21–42. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammanagi, S. and Manohar, C. S. (2016). “Adaptive time stepping in pseudo–dynamic testing of earthquake driven structures.” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Springer, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 3047–3074. DOI: 10.1007/s10518–016–9945–0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, S. Y. (2002). “Explicit pseudodynamic algorithm with unconditional stability.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 128, no. 9, pp. 935–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang, M. and Pakzad, S. N. (2014). “Optimal sensor placement for modal identification of bridge rjdwpsystems considering number of sensing nodes.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 04014019, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943–5592.0000594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, C. and Ricles, J. M. (2010). “Tracking error–based servohydraulic actuator adaptive compensation for real–time hybrid simulation.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 136, no. 4, pp. 432–440. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943–541X.0000124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chopra, A. K. (2001). Dynamics of structure, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Sadley River, NJ, USA, pp. 180–184.Google Scholar
  7. Juang, J. N. and Pappa, R. S. (1985). “An eigensystem realization algorithm for modal parameter identification and model reduction.” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, ARC, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 620–627. DOI: 10.2514/3.20031.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Jung, R. Y., Benson Shing, P., Stauffer, E., and Thoen, B. (2007). “Performance of a real–time pseudodynamic test system considering nonlinear structural response.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp 1785–1809. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.722.Google Scholar
  9. Heylen, W., Lammens, S., and Sas, P. (1995). Modal analysis theory and testing, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Katholieke University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
  10. Horiuchi, T., Inoue, M., Konno, T., and Namita, Y. (1999). “Real–time hybrid experimental system with actuator delay compensation and its application to a piping system with energy absorber.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 1121–1141. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096–9845(199910)28: 10<1121::AID–EQE858>3.0.CO;2–O.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kelly, J. M. (1993). Earthquake–resistant design with rubber, 2nd Ed., Springer, London, UK, pp. 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, J. K. (2004). “KOCED collaboratory program.” Proc. 2004 ANCER Annual Meeting: Networking of Young Earthquake Engineering Researchers and Professionals, MCEER, Honolulu, HI, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Konagai, K. and Nogami, T. (1998). “Analog circuit to simulate dynamic soil–structure interaction in shake table test.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 279–287. DOI: 10.1016/S0267–7261(97)00044–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, S. K., Park, E. C., Min, K. W., and Park, J. H. (2007). “Real–time substructuring technique for the shaking table test of upper substructures.” Engineering Structures, Elsevier, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 2219–2232. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mahin, S. A. and Shing, P. S. B. (1985). “Pseudodynamic method for seismic testing.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 111, no. 7, pp. 1482–1503. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9445(1985) 111:7(1482).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mahin, S. A., Shing, P. S. B., Thewalt, C. R., and Hanson, R. D. (1989). “Pseudodynamic test method–current status and future directions.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 115, no. 8, pp. 2113–2128. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9445(1989)115:8(2113).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mercan, O. and Ricles, J. M. (2007). “Stability and accuracy analysis of outer loop dynamics in real–time pseudodynamic testing of SDOF systems.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 1523–1543. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakashima, M., Kato, H., and Takaoka, E. (1992). “Development of real–time pseudo dynamic testing.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 79–92. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290210106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Instruments Corp. (2003). “LabVIEW user manual.” National Instruments Corp., from http://www.ni.com/pdf/manuals/320999e.pdf, Dec. 31th, 2017.Google Scholar
  20. Newmark, N. M. (1959). “A method of computation for structural dynamics.” Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
  21. Ozkaynak, H., Yuksel, E., Buyukozturk, O., Yalcin, C., and Dindar, A. A. (2011). “Quasi–static and pseudo–dynamic testing of infilled RC frames retrofitted with CFRP material.” Composites Part B: Engineering, Elsevier, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 238–263. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb. 2010.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shao, X. and Griffith, C. (2013). “An overview of hybrid simulation implementations in NEES projects.” Engineering Structures, Elsevier, vol. 56, pp. 1439–1451. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shing, P. S. B., Vannan, M. T., and Cater, E. (1991). “Implicit time integration for pseudodynamic tests.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 551–576. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290200605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Song, J. N., Bae, J. W., Kim, J. K., and Shin, S. (2006). “Real–time hybrid shaking table test.” Proc. Fifth International Conference on Engineering Computational Technology. Civil–Comp Press, Paper 172, Stirlingshire, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Stauffer, E. (2006). The CU–boulder fast hybrid test: Integration schemes for fast hybrid testing, Internal Rep. No. CU–NEES–06–8. Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Takanashi, K. and Nakashima, M. (1987). “Japanese activities on online testing.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, vol. 113, no. 7, pp. 1014–1032. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733–9399(1987)113: 7(1014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Takanashi, K., Udagawa, K., Seki, M., Okada, T., and Tanaka, H. (1975). “Nonlinear earthquake response analysis of structures by a computeractuator on–line system.” Bulletin of Earthquake Resistant Structure Research Center, Vol. 8, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  28. Thewalt, C. R. and Mahin, S. A. (1995). “An unconditionally stable hybrid pseudodynamic algorithm.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 723–731. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290240508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wei, Z. (2005). Fast hybrid test system for substructure evaluation, PhD Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Wolf, J. P. (1994). Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models, PTR Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, pp. 120–131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Minwoo Chang
    • 1
  • Jae Kwan Kim
    • 2
  1. 1.Northern Railroad Research TeamKorea Railroad Research InstituteUiwangKorea
  2. 2.Dept. of Civil and Environmental EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations