main project sponsors and contributors

16

Upload: betsy

Post on 13-Jan-2016

39 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Main Project Sponsors and Contributors. Steve Mahin, UC Berkeley Jos é I. Restrepo, UC San Diego Ian Buckle, UN Reno Matthew J. Schoettler, UC San Diego Francesco Carrea, UC San Diego David Duck, UC San Diego Gabriele Guerrini, UC San Diego Elide Pantoli, UC San Diego - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors
Page 2: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

Main Project Sponsors and ContributorsMain Project Sponsors and Contributors

Page 3: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

Research Team Blind Prediction CommitteeResearch Team Blind Prediction Committee• Steve Mahin, UC Berkeley• José I. Restrepo, UC San Diego• Ian Buckle, UN Reno• Matthew J. Schoettler, UC San Diego• Francesco Carrea, UC San Diego• David Duck, UC San Diego• Gabriele Guerrini, UC San Diego• Elide Pantoli, UC San Diego• Mike Keever, Caltrans• Mark Mahan, Caltrans• Cliff Roblee, Caltrans• Tom Shantz, Caltrans• Phil Yin, FHWA

• Steve Mahin, Chair• José I. Restrepo• Vesna Terzic, UC Berkeley• Matthew J. Schoettler

NEES@UCSD & UCSD PersonnelNEES@UCSD & UCSD Personnel• Dan Radulescu• Andy Gunthardt• Robert Beckley• Darren McKay• Steve Morris• Lony Rodriguez• Alex Sherman• Jeff Rivor• Brad Durant• Matteo Orio

Page 4: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

Overall Objectives of the Test ProgramOverall Objectives of the Test Program

• Observe and document the nonlinear dynamic response up to collapse of a full-scale bridge column designed as per Caltrans SDC

• Observe scale effects with shake table testing of columns being carried out at UC Berkeley

• Landmark test offering practitioners and researchers the chance to blindly predict the response of the test structure, to investigate epistemic uncertainty in nonlinear modeling and to enhance future modeling techniques

Page 5: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

Test Specimen Features and InstrumentationTest Specimen Features and Instrumentation

• 4ft diameter by 24 ft tall column• 260 ton inertial mass• 272 sensors sampled at 240 Hz• 3 GPS-50 Hz differential stations

August 4 September 2856 days

Page 6: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

Blind Prediction Earthquake SequenceBlind Prediction Earthquake SequenceLoma Prieta 1989 Kobe 1995

Design EQ

LP

Page 8: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

Blind Prediction DataBlind Prediction Data

Measured unit weight: 150 pcf

Stress- Strain Relationship #11 Bar (US Cust. Units)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

Strain

Stre

ss (k

si)

Concrete

Hoops

Longitudinal Reinforcement

Page 9: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

QuestionnaireQuestionnaireNOTE: Values should be reported in absolute termsNOTE: y=0.0 is at the platen surface

1 Relative horizontal displacement (mm) at level 6: y=8.534-m: EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6Maximummaximum

2 Total horizontal acceleration (g) at level 6: y=8.534-m: EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6Maximummaximum

3 Bending moment (kN-m) at level 0: y=1.219-m: EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6Maximummaximum

4 Shear force (kN) at level 0: y=1.219-m: EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6Maximummaximum

5 Average curvature (rad/km) between y = 1.270 and 1.473 m EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6Maximummaximum

6 Average axial strain (x106) between y = 1.270 and 1.473 m EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6Maximummaximum

7 Relative residual displacement (mm) at level 6: y=8.534-m: EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6

8 Largest column compressive axial force (kN)at level 0: y=1.219-m: EQ1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6

9 Mode of failure (type corresponding number):1: None

Specify if "Other": 2: Column shear failure3: Column longitudinal bar anchorage failure4: Column hoop fracture5: Column longitudinal bar fracture6: Other

Predicted Quantitiy

• Two Categories: Researchers and Engineering Professionals• 41 entries from 14 countries

Page 10: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

ResponsesResponses

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

EQ number

max

hor

izon

atal

dis

plac

emnt

[m

m]

Experiment

Winner-RWinner-EP1

Winner-EP2

Max

. D

ispl

acem

ent

(mm

)

Page 11: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

EQ number

max

acc

eler

atio

n (g

)

Experiment

Winner-RWinner-EP1

Winner-EP2

ResponsesResponsesM

ax.

Tot

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(g)

Page 12: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

EQ number

max

ben

ding

mom

ent(kN

-m)

Experiment

Winner-RWinner-EP1

Winner-EP2

ResponsesResponsesM

ax.

Ben

ding

Mom

ent

(kN

-m)

Page 13: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

EQ number

Max

com

pres

sive

axi

al for

ce (kN

)

Experiment

Winner-RWinner-EP1

Winner-EP2

ResponsesResponses

Max

. A

xial

Com

pres

sion

(kN

)

Static

Page 14: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

Blind Prediction WinnersBlind Prediction Winners

• Researchers: ………………………………………………

• Eng. Professionals:………………………………………………

………………………………………………

Zhe Qu, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan

Bill Tremayne, Holmes Culley, San Francisco

Lawrence Burkett, Rutherford & Chekene, San Francisco

Page 15: Main Project Sponsors and Contributors

Certificates of DistinctionCertificates of Distinction

• António Arêde & team, University of Porto, Portugal• Otton Lara & team, Escuela Superior Técnica del Litoral, Ecuador• Farzin Zareian & team, UC Irvine

Engineering Professionals

Researchers

• Eric Kelley, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.• Andreas Schellenberg, Rutherford & Chekene