1 / 24

Damage Detection in a Simple Shear Beam Model: Modal Analysis and Seismic Interferometry

Damage Detection in a Simple Shear Beam Model: Modal Analysis and Seismic Interferometry. Vanessa Heckman Monica Kohler Tom Heaton May 25, 2012 University of Memphis. Overview. Modeling a building as a continuous beam Seismic Interferometry of UCLA Factor Building

amalie
Download Presentation

Damage Detection in a Simple Shear Beam Model: Modal Analysis and Seismic Interferometry

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Damage Detection in a Simple Shear Beam Model: Modal Analysis and Seismic Interferometry Vanessa Heckman Monica Kohler Tom Heaton May 25, 2012 University of Memphis

  2. Overview • Modeling a building as a continuous beam • Seismic Interferometry of UCLA Factor Building • Experimental Analysis Using Uniform Shear Model

  3. Flexible Building as a Continuous Cantilevered Beam • Dynamic motions of a continuous beam can provide insight into the deformation of buildings. • Example: MRF • If the building is considered as a continuum, it would often be anisotropic. • Stiffness associated with inter-story drift (ε13 and ε23) much less than the stiffness associated with shearing the actual floor slabs (ε12). • Stiffness associated with extension along columns (ε33) is different than for extension along the floor slabs (ε11 and ε22). • Assume that only parts of the strain tensor which are important to describe the deformation of the building are inter-story shear strain and extensional strain along the columns. • Can thus approximate the building as being isotropic, since the other elastic moduli are not important. • Heaton, T. CE 151 Class Material, 2010.

  4. Shear Beam • Whenthe groundbeneath the buildingmoveshorizontally, thisisidentical to the problem of havingan SH wavepropagatevertically in a layer of building; the bendingisapproximately zero in thiscase. • Total stiffnessagainstshearisequal to the shearmodulustimes the cross sectionalarea. • Whileactualbuildingsareneither a truebendingbeam nor a shearbeam, we cangainsomeusefulinsight by lookingattheseapproximatemodes of deformation. • It is identical to the problem of a vertically propagating SH wave in a plate with a rigid boundary at the bottom and a free boundary at the top. • Heaton, T. CE 151 Class Material, 2010.

  5. Shear Beam • Solution to this problem can be written as a sum of reflecting pulses. The motion in the building is given by u1g(t) Horizontal motion of the ground at the base of the building c = β = Shear wave velocity in the building • Drift isgiven by • Base of the building: zerodisplacement, double the drift • Top of the building: zero drift, double the displacement • Sequencerepeatswithperiodicity 4h/c, whichis the fundamentalperiod of the building oscillation. • Heaton, T. CE 151 Class Material, 2010.

  6. Shear Beam • Mode Shapes for the first four modes • Natural Frequencies

  7. Background: UCLA Factor Building • UCLA Factor Building • 17-story, moment-resisting steel-frame structure • Embedded 72-channel accelerometer array • N-S modal frequencies: 0.59 Hz, 1.8 Hz, 3.1 Hz (1:3:5 ratio for shear beam) • E-W modal frequencies: 0.55 Hz, 1.6 Hz, 2.8 Hz (1:3:5 ratio for shear beam) • Experimental data and numerical model (ETABS) • Kohler, M. Heaton, T., Bradford, C. 2007. BSSA.

  8. Background: UCLA Factor Building Experimental Hammer Test • Impulse Response Function • Deconvolution is used to extract the transfer function • Bandpass filtered between 0.5 Hz and 10 Hz • Stack over small EQs to stay in linear response • Shear beam: waves travel nondispersivelythroughout the lower floors of the building (v = ~160 m/sec) • For bending beams, the waves would disperse with the wave velocity increasing as the square root of the frequency Impulse Response Functions • Kohler, M., Heaton, T., Bradford, C. 2007. BSSA.

  9. Laboratory Example: Uniform Shear Beam • Experimental Setup • Five-story uniform shear model • Piezoelectric accelerometers, DAQ • Force transducer hammer • Shake table, signal generator • Damaged/undamaged configuration

  10. Laboratory Example: Uniform Shear Beam • Consider the structure modeled by a multi-degree-of-freedom system • Compute constants m, k from mass, geometry, and material properties • m: Mass of each floor • k: Stiffness due to bending plate (column) • Determine the mode shapes and frequenciesof the system from the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of M-1K • Damping is found experimentally • 1st mode: logarithmic decrement method • Higher modes: half-power bandwidth method • Neglected: ζn< 0.005, n = 1,…,5 • Kohler, M., CE 181 Class Notes, 2010.

  11. MDOF System • Transfer function used to find mode shapes • Relates the response at DOF k to simple harmonic excitation at DOF m kth component of the rth mode shape modal damping frequency of the rth mode • Consider the transfer function at the rth modal frequency • Kohler, M., CE 181 Class Notes, 2010.

  12. Damping Coefficient Logarithmic Decrement Method • 1st Mode damping ratio • Free vibration • Half-Power Bandwidth Method • Higher Mode damping ratio • Based on the response of a SDOF system, but can be used for MDOF system as long as there is no coupling between the modes • Can be problems obtaining low damping ratio due to freq resolution

  13. Mode Shapes, Frequencies, and Wave Propagation • Calculated vs. Observed: Good agreement • Damage: Introduced at the 4th floor • Damaged vs. Undamaged • Significant decrease in frequencies • Changes in mode shapes • Changes in wave propagation

  14. SH Plane Waves transmitted • Ray Path Diagram • Continuous displacements • Continuous tractions • Reflection/Transmission Coefficients • Vertical incidence • Fixed Surface: Rss = -1 • Free Surface: Rss = 1 • Higher to Lower Velocity/Stiffness: Rss > 0; Tss > 1 θT β2< β1 β2=sqrt(μ2/ρ2) x1 β1=sqrt(μ1/ρ1) θR θI incident reflected x3 • Heaton, T. CE 151 Class Material, 2010.

  15. Experimental Results: 1st Floor

  16. Experimental Results: 2nd Floor

  17. Experimental Results: 3rd Floor

  18. Experimental Results: 4th Floor

  19. Experimental Results: 5th Floor

  20. Seismic Interferometry • Seismic interferometry may aid in damage detection by comparing post-event waveforms with pre-event waveforms • Changes in wave speed • Floor-to-floor reflections • Forward modeling using a numerical model (ETABS) will be used to test the application to civil structures Impulse Response Function • Kohler, M., Heaton, T., Bradford, C. 2007. BSSA. • Hayashi, Y., Sugino, M., Yamada, M., Takiyama, N., Onisha, Y. 2012. STESSA

  21. Acknowledgements • Thomas Heaton, Professor of Seismology, Caltech • Dr. Monica Kohler, Researcher, Caltech • Ming HeiCheng, PhD Candidate, Caltech • Rob Clayton, Professor of Geophysics, Caltech • Hartley Fellowship • Housner Fund

  22. Thank you! Questions?

  23. Seismic Interferometry • Cross-Correlation of Ambient Noise vsDeconvolution • Synthetic Example: Simple Shear Beam • D’Alembert Solution • Cross-Correlation • Deconvolution Cross-Correlation Deconvolution IRF

  24. Seismic Interferometry • IRF from Cross-correlation of Ambient Noise • Prieto, G., Lawrence, J..Chung, A., Kohler, M. 2010

More Related