Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid...

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated

Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing

SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHER KHALID MOSALAM, PROFESSOR, PROJECT PISHAKHZOD TAKHIROV, S ITE OPERATIONS MANAGER

nees@berkeley

QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012

2QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012

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


Test Setup

Reconfigurable Reaction Wall

Loading Steel Tube

Specimen

Gravity Loading

Actuator

Support beam


Test Setup


Test Setup and Specimen


Test Specimen

7/16” OSB Skins 3-5/8” EPS Insulating Foam


Instrumentation

Left Uplift Right

Uplift

Bottom vertical sliding

Top vertical sliding

Bottom gap opening

Top gap opening

Tube sliding


Test Matrix

Specimen Protocol Gravity Nail spacing [in] Remarks

S1 CUREE No 6 Conventional wood panel

S2 CUREE No 6 -

S3 CUREE Yes 6 -

S4 HS Yes 6 Near-fault pulse-type GM

S5 HS Yes 3 Near-fault pulse-type GM

S6 CUREE Yes 3 -

S7 HS Yes 3 Long duration, harmonic GM

S8 HS Yes 3Near-fault GM; 3 stories computational

substructure

• 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

2. Investigate the effects of

1. Compare the responses of conventional wood panel vs SIPs


Hybrid Simulation

Specimens S4, S5, S7c

m

Specimen m (kip-sec2/in) ξ k (kip/in) c (kip-sec/in) T (sec)

S4 0.0325 0.05 18 0.0076 0.27

S5 0.0325 0.05 32 0.0102 0.20

S7 0.0325 0.05 32 0.0102 0.20


Hybrid Simulation

c=αmm

m

m

m

u1

Experimental DOF

u2

u3

c=αm

c=αm

c=αmAnalytical DOF

force-displacement relation from previous tests

Specimen S8


Hybrid Simulation: Numerical Integration

Specimen m k T (sec) dt (sec) dt/T

S4 0.0325 18 0.27 0.005 0.018 ≤ 1/π

S5 0.0325 32 0.20 0.005 0.025 ≤ 1/π

S7 0.0325 32 0.20 0.0125 0.0625 ≤ 1/π

S8 - - T4=0.10 0.005 0.05 ≤ 1/π

• Explicit Newmark Integration with γ=0.5

• Does not require iterations

• Does not require knowledge of initial experimental stiffness


0 10 20 30-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8A

cc (

g)Los Gatos, Loma Prieta, 1989

0 10 20 30-20

-10

0

10

20

Vel

(in

/sec

)

0 10 20 30-5

0

5

Time (sec)

Dis

p (in

/sec

)

0 25 50 75 100

-0.5

0

0.5

Vinadel Mar, Chile, 1985

0 25 50 75 100-20

-10

0

10

20

0 25 50 75 100-5

0

5

Time (sec)

PGD = 3.87 in

PGV = 20.0 in/s

PGA = 0.61 g

PGV = 11.9 in/s

PGD = 4.53 in

PGA = 0.54 g

Near

fault

, puls

e-t

ype G

M

Long d

ura

tion, harm

onic

G

M

Hybrid Simulation: Ground Motions


Test Results: Global Parameters

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Displacement [inch]

Fo

rce

[kip

]

Full-HistoryEnvelope

• Initial stiffness =fi /di

• Force capacity = fc

• Ductility =du/dy

• Hysteretic energy = fdx

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Displacement [inch]

Fo

rce

[kip

]

envelope

di, f

i

dc, f

cdy, f

y

du, 0.75f

c

dp, f

p

dn, f

n

• Positive peak displacement = dp

• Negative peak displacement = dn

• Residual displacement


Test Results: Local Parameters

Top 2x6 Displ

Top Vertical Displ

Bottom Vertical Displ

Bottom Horizontal Displ

Bottom left 2x6 Displ

Bottom Right 2x6 Displ

Top Horizontal Displ

Tube sliding

Top ver. disp

Top hor. disp

Bottom hor. disp

Bottom ver. disp

Right upliftLeft uplift

Top horizontal gap opening

Bottom horizontal gap opening

Bottom vertical sliding

Right upliftLeft uplift

Top vertical sliding

Tube sliding

Peaks of local responses


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

SIPs (S2) Conventional Wood Frame (S1)

• 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



Specimen S1 S2

Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 46.2 12.2

Force Capacity [kip] 12.2 11.4

Ductility 7.0 3.6

Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 201.8 193.1

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20F

orce

[ki

ps]

Displacement [inch]

S1 (Conventional wood panel)

S2 (SIPs)

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S2

S3

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S3

S4-6 -3 0 3 6

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S4

S5

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S5

S6S7

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

S5

S8

b) Effect ofgravity loading

f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring

d) Effect ofnail spacing

e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type

c) Effect ofloading type



Exterior Temp: -0.4 F

Double 2x4 studs

2x4 studs @ 16

OSB

Double 2x4 studs

EPS

Interior Temp: 69.8 F

OSB

OSB

Exterior Temp: -0.4 F

Interior Temp: 69.8 F

R-factor: 3.49

S1 S2 S1 S2

cavity

14.10

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


Test Results: Effect of Gravity Loading (S2 vs S3)

No gravity loading (S2) Gravity loading (S3)



Test Results: Effect of Gravity Loading (S2 vs S3)

Specimen S2 S3



Ductility 3.6 3.5


-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S1

S2

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S2 (No gravity)

S3 (Gravity)

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S3

S4

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S4

S5

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S5

S6S7

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

S5

S8

a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs





SpecimenBottom ver.

slidingBottom gap

openingTop ver. Sliding

Top gap opening

Uplift right

Uplift left

Tube sliding

S2 0.71 0.04 0.73 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.02

S3 0.49 0.01 0.50 0.14 0.03 0.02 0.03* All units in inches


Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S4 vs S5)

Nail Spacing: 6”(S4) Nail Spacing: 3”(S5)

Hybrid Simulation with Pulse-type GM

3”

6”


Specimen S4 S5



Ductility 2.5 3.7


Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S4 vs S5)-6 -3 0 3 6

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S1

S2

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S2

S3

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S3

S4

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S4 (6" nail spc.)

S5 (3" nail spc.)

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S5

S6S7

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S5

S8






SpecimenDE MCE 1.5MCE

S4 S5 S4 S5 S4 S5

Peak Disp. (+) 2.7 1.3 4.7 3.5 - 5.8

Peak Disp. (-) -2.8 -1.0 - -3.2 - -

Residual Disp. 1.5 0.1 - 0.8 - -



Nail Spacing: 6”(S3) Nail Spacing: 3”(S6)

3”

6”



Specimen S3 S6



Ductility 3.5 4.8



-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S1

S2

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S2

S3

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

Displacement [inch]

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S4

S5

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S5

S6S7

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S5 (No analytical substructure)

S8 (Analytical substructure)





-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20F

orce

[ki

ps]

S1

S2

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S2

S3

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S3

S4

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S4 (6" nail spc.)

S5 (3" nail spc.)

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S5

S6S7

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S5

S8






S3

S6


Test Results: Effect of Lateral Loading (S6 vs S7)

Cyclic Testing with CUREE Protocol for Ordinary GM (S6)

Hybrid Simulation with Long Duration,

Harmonic GM (S7)

Nail spacing: 3”

0 10 20 30-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

Acc

(g)

Los Gatos, Loma Prieta, 1989

0 10 20 30-20

-10

0

10

20

Vel

(in

/sec

)

0 10 20 30-5

0

5

Time (sec)

Dis

p (in

/sec

)

0 25 50 75 100

-0.5

0

0.5


0 25 50 75 100-20

-10

0

10

20

0 25 50 75 100-5

0

5

Time (sec)

PGD = 3.87 in

PGV = 20.0 in/s

PGA = 0.61 g

PGV = 11.9 in/s

PGD = 4.53 in

PGA = 0.54 g

0 10 20 30-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

Acc

(g)


0 10 20 30-20

-10

0

10

20

Vel

(in

/sec

)

0 10 20 30-5

0

5

Time (sec)

Dis

p (in

/sec

)

0 25 50 75 100

-0.5

0

0.5


0 25 50 75 100-20

-10

0

10

20

0 25 50 75 100-5

0

5

Time (sec)

PGD = 3.87 in

PGV = 20.0 in/s

PGA = 0.61 g

PGV = 11.9 in/s

PGD = 4.53 in

PGA = 0.54 g

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time [sec]

Dis

pla

cem

en

t [in

ch]


Specimen S6 S7



Ductility 4.8 3.4


Test Results: Effect of Lateral Loading (S6 vs S7)

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S1

S2

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S2

S3

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S3

S4

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S4

S5

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

S5

S8

S6 (CUREE)

S7 (HS)






Specimen S6 S7

Peak Disp. (+) 4.7 3.3

Peak Disp. (-) -4.7 -4.2

Residual Disp. 0.0 0.3


Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vs S7)

Hybrid Simulation with Pulse-Type GM (S5)

Hybrid Simulation with Long Duration, Harmonic GM (S7)

Nail spacing: 3”

0 10 20 30-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

Acc

(g)


0 10 20 30-20

-10

0

10

20

Vel

(in

/sec

)

0 10 20 30-5

0

5

Time (sec)

Dis

p (in

/sec

)

0 25 50 75 100

-0.5

0

0.5


0 25 50 75 100-20

-10

0

10

20

0 25 50 75 100-5

0

5

Time (sec)

PGD = 3.87 in

PGV = 20.0 in/s

PGA = 0.61 g

PGV = 11.9 in/s

PGD = 4.53 in

PGA = 0.54 g

0 10 20 30-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

Acc

(g)


0 10 20 30-20

-10

0

10

20

Vel

(in

/sec

)

0 10 20 30-5

0

5

Time (sec)

Dis

p (in

/sec

)

0 25 50 75 100

-0.5

0

0.5


0 25 50 75 100-20

-10

0

10

20

0 25 50 75 100-5

0

5

Time (sec)

PGD = 3.87 in

PGV = 20.0 in/s

PGA = 0.61 g

PGV = 11.9 in/s

PGD = 4.53 in

PGA = 0.54 g



-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S1

S2

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S2

S3

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S3

S4

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S4

S5

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

S5

S8S5 (Pulse-type)

S7 (Harmonic)






Specimen S5 S7



Ductility 3.7 3.4



S5 S7 S5 S7 S5 S7

Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.1 3.5 2.2 5.8 3.3

Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.0 -3.2 -2.0 - -4.2

Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 - 0.3



-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S1

S2

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S2

S3

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S3

S4

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S4

S5

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

S5

S8S5 (Pulse-type)

S7 (Harmonic)







S5 S7 S5 S7 S5 S7

Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.1 3.5 2.2 5.8 3.3

Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.0 -3.2 -2.0 - -4.2

Residual Disp.

0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 - 0.3

SpecimenBottom ver.

slidingBottom gap

openingTop ver. sliding

Top gap opening

Uplift right

Uplift left

Tube sliding

DES5 0.26 0.02 0.27 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.18S7 0.23 0.02 0.21 0.02 0.15 0.04 0.02

MCES5 0.63 0.05 0.64 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.19S7 0.45 0.03 0.43 0.04 0.53 0.09 0.06


Test Results: Effect of Analytical Substructuring (S5 vs S8)

Hybrid Simulation with no Analytical Substructure (S5)

Pulse-type GM

c=αmm

m

m

m

u1

Experimental DOF

u2

u3

c=αm

c=αm

c=αmAnalytical DOF

Hybrid Simulation with Analytical Substructure (S8)

mc


Test Results: Effect of Analytical Substructuring (S5 vs S8)

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S1

S2

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S2

S3

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

For

ce [

kips

]

S3

S4

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

S4

S5

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S5

S6S7

-6 -3 0 3 6-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Displacement [inch]

For

ce [

kips

]

S5 (No analytical substructure)

S8 (Analytical substructure)






Specimen S5 S8



Ductility 3.7 4.0

SpecimenDE MCE

S5 S8 S5 S8

Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.2 3.5 2.4

Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.7 -3.2 -3.1

Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4

SpecimenBottom ver.

slidingBottom gap

openingTop ver. sliding

Top gap opening

Uplift right

Uplift left

Tube sliding

DES5 0.26 0.02 0.27 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.18S8 0.37 0.03 0.37 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.13

MCES5 0.63 0.05 0.64 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.19S8 0.65 0.03 0.55 0.05 0.16 0.27 0.14


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.


Concluding Remarks

• 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.

• 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.

Thank you


Date post:	14-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cheyenne-stant
View:	218 times
Download:	2 times

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid...

Documents