1 / 8

Kutter, Hutchinson, Aschheim, Kunnath

NEESR-CR: Design of s oil and s tructure co mpatible y ielding to improve system performance [ CoSSY ???]. Kutter, Hutchinson, Aschheim, Kunnath. D.13.1 Intellectual Merits -.

buffy-fletcher
Download Presentation

Kutter, Hutchinson, Aschheim, Kunnath

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. NEESR-CR: Design of soil and structure compatible yielding to improve system performance[CoSSY ???] Kutter, Hutchinson, Aschheim, Kunnath

  2. D.13.1 Intellectual Merits - Yielding of a structural system is inherent in seismic design philosophy – yet there is almost no experimental data available to indicate how rocking foundations will dynamically interact with such a system. The proposed integrated numerical and physical simulation program with a multidisciplinary team of structural, geotechnical, academic and practicing engineers will transform our design approach for soil-foundation-structure systems, providing compatible and complementary yielding and energy dissipation of the system. Avoiding over-designed, over-conservative footings, and reducing requirements for energy dissipation mechanisms within the superstructure will save construction costs and improve performance. Results shared through the NEES data repository will provide critical benchmark data sets for calibrating numerical models in the future. Knowledge gained from this work will encourage holistic design of geo-structural systems resulting in improved performance, with due consideration of practicality, constructability, and life-cycle costs.

  3. BLK thinks: conceptual design of System 1 and 2 should occur before design of Isolated 1. Table 6 does not mean Isolated 1 is the first test. Does Fig 7 show system 1, 2 and 3? Suggest Fig 7a shows concept for part of System 1 Test.

  4. Possible comments from co-PI’s What do you think will be the major outcomes/consequences of this project? What is your major contribution to the project? What is the most challenging part of the project? What is the most challenging aspect of your contribution to the project? What are you depending on others in the team for in the short term and long term? What questions do we have and what input do we need from technology transfer team (now, soon, eventually)? New status and plans for recruiting students to help on this project? What are your short term action items?

  5. Plan for face to face kickoff meeting October 14 • Invite TT to particpate in person or by webex • Expect Mark Moore to participate in person • Students to attend • 1 to 5 pm, Wednesday (PEER mtg is on Th, Fr) • Agenda on next page

  6. Oct 14 kickoff agenda 1-4:30 pm • Bruce: Overall Goals, Task 1 (centrifuge testing) (30 min) • Tara: concepts for designing small scale realistic bldgs and description of task 2 (15 min) • Mark: Task 3 (Development and verification of simplified design tools) (15 min) • Sashi: ground motion selection, significance of vertical shaking in last system test, comments (15 min) • Break and Tour of facility (30 min) • Technology Transfer team input (5 min each) • priorities, cautions, what can project accomplish to help code development progress • TT members describe how they could help project be effective • Bruce: Project Schedule and next meetings

More Related