needs and challeenges on large today’s topics …€¦ · “very large-scale (or...
Post on 10-Sep-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
NEEDS AND CHALLEENGES ON LARGE STRUCTURAL TESTING
FOR THE ADAVANCEMENT OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
Masayoshi Nakashima
Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI)Kyoto University
E-DefenseNational Research Center for
Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED)
Today’s Topics
IntroductionEarthquake disasters in JapanLessons learned from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) and Engineering Needs
Needs for Large-Scale Structural TestingMember behavior versus System behaviorQuasi-static loading versus dynamic loading
Development of E-Defense and Large TestsDevelopment and early testsNew challenges – reproduction of unknown behaviorPerformance of retrofit
Collaboration with Numerical SimulationDevelopment of “numerical shaking table”
What is Masayoshi Nakashima
He is Professor at Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto Univ.He is Director of E-Defense, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED).He serves as Editor of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (EESD), the official journal of International Association for Earthquake Engineering q g g(IAEE), published by Wiley.He serves as Vice-President of Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2007 – 2009) and Vice-President of Japan Society for Earthquake Engineering (JAEE) (2009 –present).
1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake
Great damage to our buildings and civil infrastructures
2004Niigata-Chuetsu
2003Mi i H k b
Damaging Earthquake After 1995 Kobe
2003Tokachioki
2007Niigata-Chuetsuoki
2005Fukuoka-Seihouoki
2001Geiyo
Miyagi-Hokubu
2000Tottori-Seibu
2007Notohanto
gata C uetsuo
Tokai, Tonankai, and Nankai Earthquakes– Hitting us periodically –
Tokyo
KyotoKobe
Tokai
Tonankai
Nankai
500 km
2
Tokai, Tonankai, and Nankai Earthquakes– Hitting us periodically –
Year Earthquake Tokai Tonankai Nankai1605 Keicho ○ ○1707 Hoei ○ ○ ○0 oe ○ ○ ○1854 Ansei ○ ○ ○1944 Tonankai ○1946 Nankai ○20XX Next ? ? ?
Expected Damage and Loss of Next Tokai, Tonankai, and Nankai Earthquakes
Tokai Tonankai Tokai+TonankaiKobe+ Nankai + Nankai
Collapse 460 629 940 105(x 1,000)Death 9,200 17,800 24,700 6,400Loss ($) 260 380 530 100(x billion) - 370 - 570 - 810
Notable lessons learned from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake
(1) Cities and towns throughout Japan have large stocks of old buildings and infrastructural systems that are not sufficient in seismic capacity. To prepare for future large earthquakes, it is crucial to accurately evaluate their existing seismic capacities and then to retrofit and rehabilitate accordingly.
Assessment of Existing Seismic Capacity d A di R t fitand According Retrofit
(2) Much larger shaking than that contemplated in the current seismic design is known to be possible. Evaluation of the reserved seismic capacity of existing buildings and infrastructural systems, development of design and construction technologies to enhance the seismic capacity, and implementation of these technologies for real design and construction are critical.
Development and Application of Technologies to Ensure Higher Seismic Capacity
Critical Needs
(1) Characterization of Complete Collapse (the instant of inability to sustain vertical load) and Collapse Margin (distance between damage considered in design and complete collapse)
(2) Verification of Actual Performance of New Technologies developed for enhanced seismic capacity
Resistance
Incipient damage Ultimate
collapse
Damage
Resistance
Incipient damageIncipient damage Ultimate
collapseUltimate collapse
DamageDamage
Critical Needs
Collapse Margin
Enhancement of Safety & Functionality
Loss of Properties(Economic Issue)
DeformationLife Safety(Societal Issue)
Loss of Properties(Economic Issue)
DeformationLife Safety(Societal Issue)
Small Quake Medium/Large Quake Extreme Quake
Critical Needs
(1) Characterization of Complete Collapse (the instant of inability to sustain vertical load) and Collapse Margin (distance between damage considered in design and complete collapse)considered in design and complete collapse)
(2) Verification of Actual Performance of New Technologies developed for enhanced seismic capacity
3
Critical Needs
Devices and Elements
Developed for Passive Damping
Systems
Critical Needs(1) Characterization of Complete Collapse (the
instant of inability to sustain vertical load) and Collapse Margin (distance between damage considered in design and complete collapse)
(2) Verification of Actual Performance of New Technologies developed for enhanced seismic capacitycapacity
Need of Real Experimental Data
Need of Real Experimental DataRealistic Data on Complete Collapse, Complete Failure, Actual Performance Still limited.
Critical NeedsNeed of Real Experimental Data
Equip Sensors in Structures and Wait for a Large Shaking, and Measure.
Test in Laboratory.
Collapse (mild inelasticity vs. complete failure)Size (full-scale vs. miniature)Time (dynamic vs. quasi-static)Redundancy (member vs. system)
Collapse Characterization Performance Verification
Today’s Topics
IntroductionEarthquake disasters in JapanLessons learned from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) and Engineering Needs
Needs for Large-Scale Structural TestingMember behavior versus System behaviorQuasi-static loading versus dynamic loading
Development of E-Defense and Large TestsDevelopment and early testsNew challenges – reproduction of unknown behaviorPerformance of retrofit
Collaboration with Numerical SimulationDevelopment of “numerical shaking table”
Is “Full-Scale” Needed?Difficulties in Scaling Down DetailsDifficulties in Duplicating Details
RC Column
Buiding
Weld
Sorry, I cannot scale down.
Steel Connection
Big Specimen Small Specimen
0.8 m4 m
Is “Full-Scale” Needed?Difficulties in Scaling Down DetailsDifficulties in Duplicating Details
Ductile, but failed after so so deformation
-2
-1
0
1
2
-0.5 0 0.5
M/Mp
θx (rad)
Infinitely Ductile?Dynamic Test Video
4
Rate-of-Loading Effect?“Dynamic” sometimes increase ductility.
Effect of strain rate on stress-strain behavior
quasi-static dynamicDynamic Test Video
3.5m
1.5m
Test of Full-Scale Steel Frame to Failure in Cyclic Loading
3.5m
1.5m
6.0m6.0m
8.25m
Test Structure
South
North
1.5m
8.25m
Oil Jacks
South North
6.0m 6.0m
1.5m
1.5m3.5m
3.5m
Oil Jacks
Force (kN)
500
Fracture
Element Failure versus Frame BehaviorBeam bottom-flange fracture cause drop of 15%
but resistance remained stable
Beam
Column
Fracture
Story DriftAngle(rad)
0.04-0.04
-500Force (kN)
1/20rad
Final Failure
1000
Force (kN)Force (kN)
1000
Column bases are the potential weak spot, ultimately being the source of collapse.
Story Drift Angle(rad)
-1000
-0.1 0.1
Story DriftAngle(rad)
0. 1-0. 1 -1000
d
H
Step-1:Beam Collapse
Mechanism formed
Step-2:Beam Collapse
Mechanism progressed
Step-3:Story Collapse
Mechanism formed
Change in Collapse Mechanism
Column base crash
Column local buckling
5
Critical NeedsNeed of Real Experimental Data
Collapse (mild inelasticity vs. complete failure)Size (full-scale vs. miniature)Time (dynamic vs. quasi-static)Redundancy (member vs. system)
Collapse Characterization
Performance Verification
It may make sense to test in “Full-Scale” (instead of miniatures), for “System” (instead of member),
Dynamically (instead of quasi-statically), till Collapse (instead of mild inelasticity).
Today’s Topics
IntroductionEarthquake disasters in JapanLessons learned from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) and Engineering Needs
Needs for Large-Scale Structural TestingMember behavior versus System behaviorQuasi-static loading versus dynamic loading
Development of E-Defense and Large TestsDevelopment and early testsNew challenges – reproduction of unknown behaviorPerformance of retrofit
Collaboration with Numerical SimulationDevelopment of “numerical shaking table”
What is E-Defense?
It is a jumbo shaking table of 20 m by 15 m in plan, activated in 3D
Owned by National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention
Lessons from 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake
It may make sense to test in “Full-Scale” (instead of miniatures), for “System” (instead of member),
Dynamically (instead of quasi-statically), till Collapse (instead of mild inelasticity).
Mission of E-DefenseE-Defense has the unique capacity to experiment with life-size buildings and infrastructural systems in real earthquake conditions. It (I hope) stands as a tool of ultimate verification.
Shaking table and actuator system Shaking Table at InstallationTwo Crane: 400 metric ton each
Weight: 700 metric ton
6
3D Full-Scale Earthquake Testing FacilityPayloadSizeDriving Type
Sh ki Di ti
12 MN (1,200 tonf)20 m x 15 m
Accumulator ChargeElectro-Hydraulic Servo ControlX & Y H i t l Z V ti l
Specifications of Shaking System
Shaking DirectionMax. Acceleration(at Max. Loading)Max. VelocityMax. DisplacementMax. Allowable Moment
X & Y Horizontal>9 m/s/s
2 m/s1 m
OverturningMoment
150 MN x m
Z Vertical>1.5 m/s/s
0.7 m/s0.5 m
YawingMoment
40 MN x m
Three Major Tests at E-Defense TestIn Fiscal 2005 to 2006
RC Wood
Soils/Foundation
Two nearly identical houses built in 1974, one unretrofitted the other retrofitted; actual houses were transported.
First – Wood Test
Test click here
Six-story RC building with shearwall, designed in accordance with 1970s practice
Second – RC Building Test
RC clickColumn click
Reproduction of Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading of Quay side with Sheet Piles and Structures with Pile Foundations
Third – Soil Test Using Rigid Sand Box
Box global click
Box local click
NEES – E-Defense Collaboration
NEESReady in October, 2004
E-DefenseReady in April, 2005
7
Complete Collapse Test of FourComplete Collapse Test of Four--Story Story Steel Moment FrameSteel Moment Frame
E-Defense Steel Collapse
Investigation Investigation –– Anatomy of Specimen Anatomy of Specimen Collective Effort by six researchers headed Collective Effort by six researchers headed
and twenty studentsand twenty studentsDamage of
Interior Partition
Damage of Cladding
Overall Dynamic Response
Structural Health
Connection Behavior
Column Base Behavior
Correlation with Design Behavior
Column Local Buckling
Composite Action
CladdingMonitoring
Calibration of Numerical Analysis
Blind Analysis CompetitionParticipants from all over the world.Application through website.Competition for accurate simulation of collapse testCategory :
(1) 3D Analysis, Researcher (2) 3D Analysis, Practicing Engineer( ) l i h(3) 2D Analysis, Researcher (4) 2D Analysis, Practicing Engineer
Registration:115 teams(US:44, Japan:37, others:34)
Final submission : 47 teams(Japan:17, US:15, others:15)
Please, predict my collapse!
Blind Analysis Competition – Examples (for JR Takatori 60%)
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
700%
ysis
/ M
easu
red
) rat
io_ Analysis results of participants Measured
-0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
t ang
le o
f 1st
stor
y
Analysis(Y) Measured
0%
100%
200%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Teams
( Ana
ly
Statistics: Maximum drift angle of first story
(Y-direction)
-0.03
-0.02
0 5 10 15 20sec
Drif
t
A good example: Time history of first story drift
(Y-direction)
Our modern cities have changed very significantly for the past forty years. For example, In Tokyo of late 1960s, there was no high-rise office in downtown Tokyo, the metropolitan subway had far less commercial lines, waterfronts remained sparse, neither PC nor Internet was existent, very few people who did not speak Japanese lived in Japan, or the word “globalization” was not invented yet
Change of our Society
not invented yet.
Earthquake engineering has a long history of “learning from actual earthquakes and earthquake damages.” That is, we first understand problems by actual damage; then develop engineering to patch them.
Progress of R&D based on “Learning from Earthquakes”
1964 Niigata 1968 Tokachi-oki 1995 Kobeg
Liquefaction RC Shear Failure
Seismic Retrofit
8
Attitude toward “learning from actual damage,” seems to make sense, because civil/building engineering traditionally places much emphasis on “experiences” compared to other engineering disciplines
Changes in Life and Society
BUT --- Our society has changed significantly for recent decades. We have to deal with urbanized cities like below. “Life safety”, of course, but “quality of life” and “security of life” become very important.
Shall this approach be successful, we would be able to predict our current problems, take action to solve or resolve them, and prepare for the future, all achieved before a real big one would hit us.
Change from “Learning from actual earthquake damage” to “learning from
quasi-actual earthquake damage”
How are we able to produce quasi-actual damage? –“very large-scale (or realistic-scale) tests,” “tests using actual ground motions,” and “tests on the entire structure (rather than members and elements)” is a solution.
Solution Today’s Topics
IntroductionEarthquake disasters in JapanLessons learned from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) and Engineering Needs
Needs for Large-Scale Structural TestingMember behavior versus System behaviorQuasi-static loading versus dynamic loading
Development of E-Defense and Large TestsDevelopment and early testsNew challenges – reproduction of unknown behaviorPerformance of retrofit
Collaboration with Numerical SimulationDevelopment of “numerical shaking table”
Never ceasing urban society, characterized by “high performance”, “density”, and “globalization.
Rapidly Grown Megacities
22% of companies whose stock are open to the Tokyo stock market has their headquarter offices in high-rises in downtown Tokyo. Their sales amass to about 30% of Japan’s total sale (1.0 trillion US $$).
Prediction of Un-experienced Behavior and Proposal for Necessary Measures
Performance of High-Rise Buildings Subjected to Long-Period Ground Motion
Response
Tokai
TonankaiNankai
Nankai1995 Kobe
Ground Motion
9
Prototype and Test Structure
PrototypeHigh-rise building
Me1
Me1Ke2
Ke3DamperRubberBearing
Concrete Mass
Substructure Model forHigh-Rise Steel Building
3 8
1.5m×3
50Mass Stiffness
Ke1Me1
Me2
Specimen
8m12m
4.5m
3.8m×3
21.6
m
Rubber Bearings Steel Damper
Construction of SpecimenConstruction of Specimen
Piping Partition Wall
Specimen
High-Rise
Fracture Local BuccklingCracks
Column
Damage to Beam-to-Column Connections
Column
ColumnColumn
1000
2000M (kN-m)
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
M (kN-m)
Rotation (rad)
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
M (kN-m)
Rotation (rad)
0
1000
2000M (kN-m)
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
M (kN-m)
Rotation (rad)
Moment-Rotation Relationships of Beam-to-Column Connections in Third Story
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
M (kN-m)
Rotation (rad)
-2000
-1000
0
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02Rotation (rad)
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
M (kN-m)
Rotation (rad) -2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
M (kN-m)
Rotation (rad)
-2000
-1000
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02Rotation (rad)
Protection of Megacities- Safety of Course, Maintenance of
Functionality and Operability Required
Response
Nankai1995 Kobe
Ground Motion
Tokai
TonankaiNankai
10
Reproduction of Top Story ResponseCapacity Demand
Acceleration 9 m/s2 4.20 m/s2
Velocity 2 m/s 2.15 m/sDisplacement 1 m 1.24 m
Oil amount 20 kl 306 klr(t)Shaking table
Substructure
Direct Way Table LimitationDirect Way Table Limitation
Rubber-mass system
u(t):
ye(t))
Special input wave
Invention
Reproduction of Floor Response of Top Story of High-Rise Building
①
56
22m
xy
z Shaking Table
②
①Steel Frame(Rigid Body)
②Rubber-and-Mass system
Input-A Simulation result
3
0
3
6
cc. [
m/s
2 ]
X-direction
SpecimenTarget
-1 50
1.53
X-direction
cc. [
m/s
2 ]
Selection of Input WaveUse of “Inverse Dynamic Compensation via Simulation” Technique to Choose Best Input for Reproduction of Expected Floor Response
0 50 100 150 200 250-6
-3
Ac
0 50 100 150 200 250-6
-3
0
3
6
time [s]
Acc
. [m
/s2 ]
Y-direction
SpecimenTarget
0 50 100 150 200 250-31.5
Ac
0 50 100 150 200 250-3-1.5
01.5
3Y-direction
Acc
. [m
/s2 ]
time [s]
oil(kl)
X Y X Y X YTarget 0.93 1.50 3.31 5.43 20
Simulation 0.85 1.47 2.83 4.76 37
AMax Disp.(m) Max Acc.(m/s2) Error
3.55% 6.23%
Reproducibility
Furniture Behavior in Top Floors
BedroomOverall Office Living
WithoutWith Countermeasure
Motion in Office Floors
With Video Without Video
Base-Isolation as Solution for Better “Quality of Life”
200
250
Construction of Base-Isolated Buildings in Japan(by courtesy of JSSI)
0
50
100
150
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
11
X-ray Operation
Operability and Functionality of Medical Facilities – Test on Four-Story RC Hospital
y p
Surgery Bed
Four Story RC Hospital(Height: 17 m, Plan Dimension: 10 by 8 m)
SpecimenConventional RC FrameBase-Isolated RC Frame
Type I: Natural Rubbers and Steel DamperspType II: High Damping RubbersMeasurement• Sensor Channels• Structures: 160 chs.• Machines/Equipment: 540 chs.• Video : 50 chs.
Four Story RC HospitalBase-Isolation Systems
Type I: Natural Rubbers and Steel Dampers (Clearance: 500 mm)Ts=2.56s (30cm), 2.70s (50cm)
Fixed Base
Type II: High Damping Rubbers(Clearance: 300 mm)Ts=2.41s(30cm), 2.52s(50cm)
Types of Ground MotionType Input Motion Direction Amplitude
Fixed-Base Sannomaru X and Y 100 %
Yokohama X and Y 100 %El Centro X and Y 0.5 m/s (max Vel)
JMA Kobe X, Y, and Z 80 %Base-I l ti
El Centro X and Y 0.5 m/s (max vel)Isolation(Type I)
JMA Kobe X, Y, and Z 80 % (*1)Sannomaru X and Y 100 %
Base-Isolation(Type II)
El Centro X and Y 0.5 m/s (max vel)JMA Kobe X and Y 80 %
JMA Kobe X, Y, and Z 80% (*1)Sannnomaru X and Y 100 % (*2)
Sannnomaru: Synthesized long period motion
(*1) Effect of Vertical Motion; (*2) Collision with Retaining Wall
Four Story RC HospitalBase-Isolation Systems
Type I: Natural Rubbers and Steel Dampers (Clearance: 500 mm)Ts=2.56s (30cm), 2.70s (50cm)
Fixed Base
Type II: High Damping Rubbers(Clearance: 300 mm)Ts=2.41s(30cm), 2.52s(50cm)
Overall Sloshing
JMA Sannomaru
Today’s Topics
IntroductionEarthquake disasters in JapanLessons learned from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) and Engineering Needs
Needs for Large-Scale Structural TestingMember behavior versus System behaviorQuasi-static loading versus dynamic loading
Development of E-Defense and Large TestsDevelopment and early testsNew challenges – reproduction of unknown behaviorPerformance of retrofit
Collaboration with Numerical SimulationDevelopment of “numerical shaking table”
12
Passage to Seismic Retrofit ---Evolution of Mind in Emphasis on “Stocks”
Year:1974Floor Area:69m2
Retrofit of Wood HouseTransportation
Floor Area:69m2
Decomposition
Seismic Diagnosis:A (unretrofit): 0.43B (retrofit):
0.31 → 1.57Cost: 1.2 million yen
Wood Brace
Wood Plank
Beam
Foundation
Connection Plate (25kN)Connection Plate (15kN)Connection Plate (8.5kN)Connection Plate (5.1kN)
Referred
Outline of Retrofit
Referred Guideline
First Floor
Direction of Primary Motion
Second Floor
Adopted Retrofit Techniques
Braces Wood PanelAddition of Beam
Metal Connectors
Test on Retrofit Performance
1 2
Test click here
1 23 4
A (Unretrofit) and B (Retrofit)with Unreduced JR Takatori Motion
Restoring Force Behavior
100
200
300
rce P
(kN
)
Max Force = 241 kN
-300
-200
-100
0
-400 -200 0 200 400Displacement δ (mm)
Sto
ry s
har
e f
or
Max Force = 163 kN
13
Retrofit Performance of RC School Building Validation of retrofit by exterior steel braces Examination into correlation between type of foundation and damage to superstructure
Strength = 0.7
Strength = 1.3Plan of Specimen
Retrofit by Exterior Steel Braces
Test on Retrofit RC School Building
RC Comparison
Restoring Force Behavior (JMA Kobe)
Retrofit (JMA 100%)
Retrofit (JMA 130%)
Unretrofit (JMA 100%)
Story Shear Coefficient
1.0
Unretrofit (JMA 130%)
Drift Angle
0.04-0.04 0
0
-1.0
Retrofit of Steel High-Rise BuildingRetrofit by Buckling Restrained BracesRetrofit by Oil DampersRetrofit by Strengthening Beam-Column Connections
Long Period Ground Motion
Steel Damper
Test on Retrofit High-Rise Building
Strengthening of
ConnectionsSpecimen
High-Rise Strengthened
14
10
15
20
10
15
20
E = 637kNmE = 5487kNmE = 627kNmE = 5871kNm
Retrofitted
Story Story El Centro_0.5 m/s Sannomaru
fi d
Comparison in Response between Unretrofitted and Retrofit by BRBs
0
5
10
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.020
5
10
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
UnretrofittedRetrofitted
IDRmax (rad) IDRmax (rad)
Unretrofitted
Energy Dissipation: by 10 timesReduction of Max. Story Drift Angle: by 50%
s7
A
s780
12 169
162
80
50
50
690
s7
A
s780
12 169
162
80
50
50
690
R25
R25 25 83
607
150
2G3 / Hc -800 ~199 ~10 ~15 (ハニカム)
12
16
R25
R25 25 83
607
150
2G3 / Hc -800 ~199 ~10 ~15 (ハニカム)
12
16
Quest of “Handy” Retrofit Solution
Retrofit Alternatives
Supplemental Weld
80
B
1050
80
110
25
80
B
1050
80
110
25
7 193200
30 170
200
8515
100
R25
7 193200
30 170
200
8515
100
R25
400
35 415
450
125
150
125
34 50 158 158 50
450
125 150 125
400
400
35 415
450
125
150
125
34 50 158 158 50
450
125 150 125
400
Vertical Haunch
Wing Plates
Associated Member test
Wing plate
Presence of RC slabLong-period ground motion
Wing Plates
HaunchweldSupplemental
Tube or box section column
Increase in Cumulative Ductility
Before RetrofitAfter Retrofit Retrofit
Increase in Performance
More than 6 Times
After Retrofit
Seismic Retrofit to High-Rises
Downtown Tokyo – Shinjuku Area
Retrofit using “special oil dampers” completed for a high-rise built in 1975
Today’s Topics
IntroductionEarthquake disasters in JapanLessons learned from the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) and Engineering Needs
Needs for Large-Scale Structural TestingMember behavior versus System behaviorQuasi-static loading versus dynamic loading
Development of E-Defense and Large TestsDevelopment and early testsNew challenges – reproduction of unknown behaviorPerformance of retrofit
Collaboration with Numerical SimulationDevelopment of “numerical shaking table”
15
Collaboration with Numerical SimulationUNDERSTANDING: “Large Scale Test” and “Numerical Simulation” shall
go side by side for advancement of Earthquake Engineering.
“Large Scale Test” provides data for calibration and enhancement of accuracy of “Numerical Simulation”, while “Numerical Simulation”Simulation , while Numerical Simulation suggests future test targets.
“Analysis only attitude” or “Test (Experience) only attitude should be avoided.
ACTION and POLICYE-Defense “Numerical Shaking Table “Project is
ongoing for development of collapse simulation.Development is being made while watching E-
Defense shaking.
E-Defense “Numerical Shaking Table” Project
Simulation – 3D solid elements
top related