1 / 33

Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing. Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI SHAKHZOD TAKHIROV, SITE OPERATIONS MANAGER nees@berkeley. Introduction.

bedros
Download Presentation

Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI

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. Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing Selim Günay, PostDoctoral Researcher KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PI SHAKHZOD TAKHIROV, SITE OPERATIONS MANAGER nees@berkeley

  2. Introduction • Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) are composite panels for energy efficient construction • Composed of an energy-efficient core placed in between facing materials • Their application in seismically hazardous regions is limited due to unacceptable performance as demonstrated by cyclic testing • Limited number of tests with more realistic dynamic loading regimes • Hybrid simulation is ideal to test SIPs with a variety of structural configurations and ground motion excitations

  3. Test Setup Loading Steel Tube Reconfigurable Reaction Wall Actuator Specimen Gravity Loading Support beam

  4. Test Setup

  5. Test Setup and Specimen

  6. Test Specimen 7/16” OSB Skins 3-5/8” EPS Insulating Foam

  7. Instrumentation Tube sliding Top gap opening Top vertical sliding Bottom gap opening Bottom vertical sliding Left Uplift Right Uplift

  8. Test Matrix Compare the responses of conventional wood panel vs SIPs Investigate the effects of • A parameter related to the design and construction of panels: Nail spacing • Parameters related to loading • Presence of gravity loading • Lateral loading: CUREE protocol vs HS • Type of ground motion (Pulse type vs Long duration, harmonic) • A parameter related to HS: presence of an analytical substructure

  9. Hybrid Simulation Specimens S4, S5, S7 c m

  10. Hybrid Simulation Specimen S8 m c=αm Analytical DOF c=αm u3 m force-displacement relation from previous tests c=αm u2 m u1 m Experimental DOF c=αm

  11. Hybrid Simulation: Numerical Integration • Explicit Newmark Integration with γ=0.5 • Does not require iterations • Does not require knowledge of initial experimental stiffness

  12. Hybrid Simulation: Ground Motions Near fault, pulse-type GM Long duration, harmonic GM

  13. Test Results: Global Parameters • Positive peak displacement = dp • Negative peak displacement = dn • Residual displacement • Initial stiffness =fi /di • Force capacity = fc • Ductility =du/dy • Hysteretic energy =

  14. Test Results: Local Parameters Peaks of local responses

  15. Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2) Conventional Wood Frame (S1) SIPs (S2) • 7/16’’ OSB Skin on both sides • 3-5/8” EPS Insulating Foam • Panel to panel thermal connections • Double 2x4’’ studs @ 96’’ • 6’’ nail spacing • 7/16” OSB Skin on both sides • 2x4’’ studs @ 16’’ • Double 2x4’’ studs @ the ends • 6’’ nail spacing Cyclic Testing with CUREE protocol

  16. Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2)

  17. Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2) Heat transfer analysis using THERM 6.3: A software developed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for modeling and analyzing heat-transfer effects in building components S1 (Conventional wood) S2 (SIPs) S1 S2

  18. Test Results: Effect of Gravity Loading (S2 vsS3) No gravity loading (S2) Gravity loading (S3) Cyclic Testing with CUREE protocol

  19. Test Results: Effect of Gravity Loading (S2 vsS3) * All units in inches

  20. Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S4 vsS5) Nail Spacing: 6”(S4) Nail Spacing: 3”(S5) 3” 6” Hybrid Simulation with Pulse-type GM

  21. Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S4 vsS5)

  22. Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S3 vsS6) Nail Spacing: 6”(S3) Nail Spacing: 3”(S6) 3” 6” Cyclic Testing with CUREE protocol

  23. Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S3 vsS6) S3 S6

  24. Test Results: Effect of Lateral Loading (S6 vsS7) Cyclic Testing with CUREE Protocol for Ordinary GM (S6) Hybrid Simulation with Long Duration, Harmonic GM (S7) Nail spacing: 3”

  25. Test Results: Effect of Lateral Loading (S6 vsS7)

  26. Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vsS7) Hybrid Simulation with Pulse-Type GM (S5) Hybrid Simulation with Long Duration, Harmonic GM (S7) Nail spacing: 3”

  27. Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vsS7)

  28. Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vsS7)

  29. Test Results: Effect of Analytical Substructuring (S5 vsS8) Hybrid Simulation with Analytical Substructure (S8) Hybrid Simulation with no Analytical Substructure (S5) Pulse-type GM

  30. Test Results: Effect of Analytical Substructuring (S5 vsS8)

  31. Concluding Remarks • Finite element heat transfer analyses quantitatively show the thermal insulation efficiency of SIPs compared to conventional wood panels. • Effect of nail spacing is significant on the structural performance of SIPs.

  32. Concluding Remarks • Hybrid simulation provides the force-deformation envelope that can also be gathered from a cyclic test. But it also provides response values, where the cyclic test would require complimentary analytical simulations to get the response values. • Although the global and local responses of SIPs with and without analytical substructuring are not dramatically different, there is a need for analytical substructuring for a more realistic representation.

  33. Thank you

More Related