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 MANA GER
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
3QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Setup
Reconfigurable Reaction Wall
Loading Steel Tube
Specimen
Gravity Loading
Actuator
Support beam
4QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Setup
5QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Setup and Specimen
6QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Specimen
7/16” OSB Skins 3-5/8” EPS Insulating Foam
7QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Instrumentation
Left Uplift Right
Uplift
Bottom vertical sliding
Top vertical sliding
Bottom gap opening
Top gap openingTube
sliding
8QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Matrix
Specimen Protocol Gravity Nail spacing [in] RemarksS1 CUREE No 6 Conventional wood panelS2 CUREE No 6 -S3 CUREE Yes 6 -S4 HS Yes 6 Near-fault pulse-type GMS5 HS Yes 3 Near-fault pulse-type GMS6 CUREE Yes 3 -S7 HS Yes 3 Long duration, harmonic GMS8 HS Yes 3 Near-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 of1. Compare the responses of conventional wood panel vs SIPs
9QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Hybrid SimulationSpecimens S4, S5, S7 c
m
Specimen m (kip-sec2/in) ξ k (kip/in) c (kip-sec/in) T (sec)
S4 0.0325 0.05 18 0.0076 0.27S5 0.0325 0.05 32 0.0102 0.20S7 0.0325 0.05 32 0.0102 0.20
10QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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
11QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Hybrid Simulation: Numerical Integration
Specimen m k T (sec) dt (sec) dt/TS4 0.0325 18 0.27 0.005 0.018 ≤ 1/πS5 0.0325 32 0.20 0.005 0.025 ≤ 1/πS7 0.0325 32 0.20 0.0125 0.0625 ≤ 1/πS8 - - 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
12QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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
faul
t, pu
lse-ty
pe G
M
Long
dur
atio
n, h
arm
onic
GM
Hybrid Simulation: Ground Motions
13QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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]
Forc
e [k
ip]
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]
Forc
e [k
ip]
envelope
di, fi
dc, fcdy, fy
du, 0.75fc
dp, fp
dn, fn
• Positive peak displacement = dp• Negative peak displacement = dn• Residual displacement
14QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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
15QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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
16QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2)
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
20Fo
rce
[kip
s]
Displacement [inch]
S1 (Conventional wood panel)S2 (SIPs)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
b) Effect ofgravity loading
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
c) Effect ofloading type
17QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Comparison of Conventional Wood Panel and SIPs (S1 vs S2)
Exterior Temp: -0.4 F
Double 2x4 studs
2x4 studs @ 16
OSB
Double 2x4 studs
EPS
Interior Temp: 69.8 F
OSBOSB
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
18QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Gravity Loading (S2 vs S3)
No gravity loading (S2) Gravity loading (S3)
Cyclic Testing with CUREE protocol
19QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Gravity Loading (S2 vs S3)
Specimen S2 S3
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 12.2 23.4
Force Capacity [kip] 11.4 9.5
Ductility 3.6 3.5
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 193.1 189.2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S2 (No gravity)S3 (Gravity)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
Specimen Bottom ver. sliding
Bottom gap opening
Top 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
20QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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”
21QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Specimen S4 S5
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 22.9 35.5
Force Capacity [kip] 8.6 15.6
Ductility 2.5 3.7
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 152.7 363.1
Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S4 vs S5)-6 -3 0 3 6
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S4 (6" nail spc.)S5 (3" nail spc.)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S5S8
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
Specimen DE MCE 1.5MCES4 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 - -
22QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S3 vs S6)
Nail Spacing: 6”(S3) Nail Spacing: 3”(S6)
3”6”
Cyclic Testing with CUREE protocol
23QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Specimen S3 S6
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 23.4 32.7
Force Capacity [kip] 9.5 16.2
Ductility 3.5 4.8
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 189.2 309.9
Test Results: Effect of Nail Spacing (S3 vs S6)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
Displacement [inch]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5 (No analytical substructure)S8 (Analytical substructure)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20Fo
rce
[kip
s]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S4 (6" nail spc.)S5 (3" nail spc.)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S5S8
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
S3S6
24QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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
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
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
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
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Time [sec]
Dis
plac
emen
t [in
ch]
25QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Specimen S6 S7
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 32.7 33.2
Force Capacity [kip] 16.2 15.5
Ductility 4.8 3.4
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 309.9 1077.8
Test Results: Effect of Lateral Loading (S6 vs S7)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
S6 (CUREE)S7 (HS)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
Specimen S6 S7Peak Disp. (+) 4.7 3.3Peak Disp. (-) -4.7 -4.2
Residual Disp. 0.0 0.3
26QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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)
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
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
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
27QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vs S7)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
S5 (Pulse-type)S7 (Harmonic)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
Specimen S5 S7
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 35.5 33.2
Force Capacity [kip] 15.6 15.5
Ductility 3.7 3.4
Hysteretic Energy [kip-in] 363.1 1077.8
SpecimenDE MCE 1.5MCE
S5 S7 S5 S7 S5 S7Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.1 3.5 2.2 5.8 3.3Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.0 -3.2 -2.0 - -4.2Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 - 0.3
28QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Ground Motion Type (S5 vs S7)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
S5S8
S5 (Pulse-type)S7 (Harmonic)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
f) Effect ofanalyticalsubstructuring
d) Effect ofnail spacing
SpecimenDE MCE 1.5MCE
S5 S7 S5 S7 S5 S7Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.1 3.5 2.2 5.8 3.3Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.0 -3.2 -2.0 - -4.2
Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 - 0.3
Specimen Bottom ver. sliding
Bottom gap opening
Top ver. sliding
Top gap opening
Uplift right
Uplift left
Tube sliding
DE S5 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
MCE S5 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
29QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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)
m c
30QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
Test Results: Effect of Analytical Substructuring (S5 vs S8)
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S1S2
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S2S3
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Forc
e [k
ips]
S3S4
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
S4S5
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5S6S7
-6 -3 0 3 6-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Displacement [inch]
Forc
e [k
ips]
S5 (No analytical substructure)S8 (Analytical substructure)
b) Effect ofgravity loading
a) Conventionalwood panel vs SIPs
c) Effect ofloading type
d) Effect ofnail spacing
e) Effect ofloading andgroundmotion type
Specimen S5 S8
Initial Stiffness [kip/in] 35.5 38.3
Force Capacity [kip] 15.6 16.0
Ductility 3.7 4.0
SpecimenDE MCE
S5 S8 S5 S8Peak Disp. (+) 1.3 1.2 3.5 2.4Peak Disp. (-) -1.0 -1.7 -3.2 -3.1
Residual Disp. 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.4
Specimen Bottom ver. sliding
Bottom gap opening
Top ver. sliding
Top gap opening
Uplift right
Uplift left
Tube sliding
DE S5 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
MCE S5 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
31QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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.
32QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
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
33QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012
