Experimental Methods in Seismic Engineering

Prof. S. Bousias Department of Civil Engineering University of Patras MEEES - Academic Year 2012/2013 Astrid Aubry

Homework # 1 Exercise #2 Question a) The size effects are related with the effect that length scale produces: generally the reduction in the specimen size leads to an increase in strength properties. For example, the paper of Wallace and Krawinkler, Small Scale Model Test of Structural Steel Assemblies, s hows a comparison between a prototype and replica model (at scale 1:12.5) of 3 beam-column assemblies in term of beam-load deflection. This one of the results

Left: Model Speciment;

Right Prototype

Question b) The main conclusion of the tests by Abrams is that at the small scale the bond strength is difficult to reproduce (simulation of bond). Since, this parameter mainly affects the response of the concrete-beam RC assemblies, if it is not improved in the future tests, Abrams recommended that the minimum usable scale factor for testing isolated RC components in flexure should be one-quarter.

Question c) By comparing some results shown in the 2 papers, it may appear that strength and stiffness degradation is more significant for scaled model in RC beam-column joints than for scaled steel assemblies. In the former this behavior may be inferred to the bond deterioration, that it is not well reproduced in the small scale model.

Left: Small Scale 1:12 RC Beam Column Joint;

Right Large Scale 3:4 RC Beam Column Joint;

for Steel Assemblies

In fact, one of the conclusion of Wallace and Krawinkler is that in their study the reduced-scale model tests led to the same major conclusions on structural behavior as prototype tests (by considering that some localize failure modes could not be reproduced, and those should be studied using full scale component tests) . Strain rate effects:

In general an increase in strain rate leads to an increase of the yield strength. In the case of Structural Steel Assemblies tests, the authors say that strain rate effect are of relatively small and predictable importance in dynamic model tests, except for some localized failure modes. While in the Concrete Beam Column joints, the author says that in the tests they apply different loading histories (see the left picture) to the each scaled models, leading me to understand that for concrete the strain rate is of more significant importance than for structural steel assemblies. It is also worth to note that it is function of the similitude that one wants to do (dynamic with pseudostatic) and of the kind of test that one is doing (comparing dynamic with pseudo-static tests).

References: Small-Scale Model Tests of Structural Steel Assemblies by B.J. Wallace and H.Krawinkler; Scale Relation for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints by Abrams.

Exercise #3 The relevant geometric quantities are reported in the following figure:

The following notation will be used: the subscript 1 and 2 refers to the large and small model, respectively. The geometric scale is: Ge0m.Model1 : Geom.Model2 = 2 : 1
1 Scale D est [mm ] D int [mm ] H washer [mm] H Nut [mm ] H Int [mm ] H [mm ] B [mm ] L [mm ] 16.00 13.50 3.00 12.60 450.00 25.00 750.00 500.00 2 Scale 8.00 6.75 1.50 6.30 225.00 12.50 375.00 250.00 D est,1 /Dest,2 D int,1 /Dint,2 H wash,1 /Hwash,2 H Nut,1 /HNut,2 H Int,1 /HInt,2 H 1 /H2 B 1 /B2 L1 /L2 G. Scale 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

In the table on the left Hint is an average value:

1 Scale H 1story [mm ] H 2story [mm ] H 3story [mm ] H Top [mm ] H tot [mm] 450.00 450.00 450.00 108.000 1458.00 2 Scale 225.00 220.00 230.00 54.000 729.00 H 1story,1 /H1story,2 G. Scale 2 H 2story,1 /H2story,2 2.045455 H 3story,1 /H3story,2 1.956522 H Top,1 /HTop,2 H ToT,1 /HToT,2 2 2

Therefore, these are the scale factors for all other physical quantities which affect dynamic response:
Quantity Length Area Volume Second Moment of Area Young's Modulus Strain Stress Mass Density Mass Acceleration Velocity G. Acceleration Time, Period Frequency Impuse Energy Critical Damping Gravitational Forces Deflection G. Case L A = I = E e = 1.00 s = E =E / ( L a) m = 3L a= 1/L E/ v = ( L a)0.5 g = 1.00 t = (L / a) 0.5 w = 1/L (E / ) 0.5 i = 3L (E )0.5 e = E 3L x = 1.00 fg = 3L d = L
2 L

Using the same Material 2.00 4.00 8.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 8.00 8.00 1.00 8.00 2.00

V = 3L
4 L

the left table was constructed under the condition that the two models were built by using the same material = 1. Even though, by measurement of the slab and rod masses and dimensions in the lab, I got:
1 Scale 2 Scale H [mm ] B [mm ] L [mm ] mslab [Kg ] slab [Kg / m ]
3

25 750 500 6.500

12.5 375 250 0.850

693.33 725.33 0.955882353

= slab,1 / Slab,2

L [mm] D int [mm ] mrod [Kg ] rod [Kg / m ]

3

1 Scale 2 Scale 502.000 582.000 13.5 6.75 0.610 0.180 8489.24 8642.75 0.982237716

= rod,1 / rod,2

Eigenvectors and Eigenfrequencies:

Under the hypothesis of: 1. Mass concentrated in the center of mass of each story; 2. Center of mass = center of stiffness; 3. Bending stiffness of the slab >> Bending Stiffness of the rod
long direction short direction Lslab [mm] Eslab [MPa] Islab [mm ]
4

434 10000 976563 22501440 394 210000 1630 1738916 13

284 651042 22924002 394 1630 1738916 13

(EI/L) Slab Hrod [mm] Erod [MPa] Irod [mm ] 2*(EI/L) rod (EI/L) Slab/2*(EI/L) rod
4

We have that the problem is simplified to the evaluation of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of this model: For both systems, we get: ( ) or ( )

Where are the eigenvectors (or modal shapes) associated to eigenvalues (square of angular frequency) of the matrix (the subscript , ). In order to define , I consider the mass of the rods and slabs for both model (neglecting the washer and nut masses):

1 Scale m1 [Kg ] mslab+4*mrod m2 [Kg ] mslab+4*mrod m3 [Kg ] mslab+4*mrod/2 8.687 8.687 7.594

2 Scale 1.128 1.128 0.989

m 7.70 7.70 7.68

*note that m 8.

Where the values of k1, k2, k3 are expressed in the previous sketch and their values are:
1 Scale k1 [N/m] k2 [N/m] k3 [N/m] 269115 269115 269115 2 Scale 134558 134558 134558 k = L 2 2 2 Islab 250017000

*note that k = L = 2. The important things to point out are: H is the free length of the rod:
1 Scale HInterStory [mm] 2 HWasher [mm ] 2 HNut [mm ] HSlab [mm ] H [mm] 450 6 25.2 25 394 2 Scale 225 3 12.6 12.5 197

The moment of inertia I of the cross section of the rod is evaluated considering the inner diameter measured in the lab. are:
2 Scale 25.3 70.2 98.8
2nd Mode 1 Scale -0.7288 -0.2685 0.6299 2 Scale -0.2699 0.333 0.5953 0.7313

Therefore, eigenvalues and the eigenvectors of

Modes f1 [Hz = 1/T] f2 [Hz = 1/T] f3 [Hz = 1/T]
1st Mode 1 Scale u1 u2 u3 0.3331 0.5954 0.7312 2 Scale

1 Scale 12.9 35.8 50.9

f 0.510 0.510 0.515

2nd Mode 1 Scale 2 Scale 0.7306 0.7308

-0.729 -0.5621 -0.5628 0.6291 -0.3877 -0.3862

If we compare the obtained f with the one evaluated in the scale factor table, we see that we are very closed to the required 0.5. The not exact mach is due to the fact that the m 8 (it is almost equal). I dont compare the modal shapes because these are not absolute quantities but they depends on a coefficient a. It is worth to note that the acceleration that we will measure with the test will be characterized by a = 0.5. It means that in the small model the acceleration will be the double of the one measured on the large scale. If our requirement is that a=1, the scale factor table changes:
Quantity Length Area Volume Second Moment of Area Young's Modulus Strain Stress Mass Density Mass Acceleration Velocity G. Acceleration Time, Period Frequency Impuse Energy Critical Damping Gravitational Forces Deflection G. Case L A = I =
2 L

Required Provide 2.00 4.00 8.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 4.00 1.00 1.41 1.00
0.5 0.5

2.00 4.00 8.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 1.41 1.00 1.41 0.50 8.00 8.00 1.00 8.00 2.00

V = 3L 4L

In order to satisfy similitude, since we cannot increase the mass density in the small scale model, we add a mass so that we increase its effective mass density. By assuming that the m = 8 , we have to double the mass on small scale model. While if we consider the real ratio over each floor, we have: (
1 Scale m1 [Kg ] mslab+4*mrod m2 [Kg ] mslab+4*mrod m3 [Kg ] mslab+4*mrod/2 8.687 8.687 7.594 2 Scale 1.128 1.128 0.989 m 7.70 7.70 7.68

E e = 1.00 s = E =E / ( L a) m =
3 L

)
Dm2 1.043 1.043 0.909

a= 1/L E/ v = ( L a)0.5 g = 1.00 t = ( L / a)

1.41 0.71 5.66 8.00 1.00 4.00 2.00

w = 1/L (E / )

Therefore, now the natural frequencies of the two models are:

Modes f1 [Hz = 1/T] f2 [Hz = 1/T] f3 [Hz = 1/T] 1 Scale 12.9 35.8 50.9 2 Scale 18.3 50.6 72.0 f 0.707 0.707 0.707

i = 3L (E )0.5 e = E 3L x = 1.00 fg = 3L d = L

By adding a mass on the small scale model we satisfy all the requirement of scale factor table.