Advertisement

Abstract

This chapter reflects the first of the four lectures that the author has presented at Udine, Italy, at CISM-International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, in June 2007, in the aim of the course “New Approaches to Analysis and Testing of Mechanical and Structural Systems”. He is being managing experimental activities in seismic engineering since 1993, when LNEC (the Portuguese National Laboratory for Civil Engineering) has started the construction of a large triaxial shaking table at the new earthquake testing hall of its Structures Department. Following a presentation of the main objectives of the Seismic Engineering experimentation, a brief state-of-the-art is made concerning its main laboratory methodologies, with a more clear focus on the shaking table tests. The leading problems related to the main testing methodologies (static, pseudo-dynamic, and shaking table) are identified and discussed. The advantages and disadvantages of each one are also highlighted. Moreover, a brief presentation of the centrifuge tests is introduced and, finally, the future developments needed are identified.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. G. Armer. Final report under consulting agreement between the Nevada Testing Institute and G. A. Consultants. April 1998.Google Scholar
  2. R. Bairrao, M.J. Falcao, P. Carydis, H. Mouzakis, L. Karapitta, and J.C. Queval. NEFOREEE-Performance benchmark of three major European shaking tables. 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. paper 110.Google Scholar
  3. R. Bairrao and R. Severn. Experiences under ECOLEADER — European Consortium of Laboratories for Earthquake and Dynamic Experimental Research. ISBN 972-49-1972-2, 2007. CASCADE report, n.8.Google Scholar
  4. F. Borges. Harmonisation of rules for seismic design. Lisbon, Portugal, 1980. CSNI specialist meeting on Probabilistic Methods in Seismic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants.Google Scholar
  5. E. Buckingham. On physically similar systems. illustrations of the use of dimensional analysis. Physics Review, (4):354–377, 1914.Google Scholar
  6. D. Combescure, F. Pires, P. Cerqueira, and P. Pegon. Test on masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames and its numerical interpretation. Acapulco, Mexico, June 1996. 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. paper 1731.Google Scholar
  7. A. Costa, P. Morais, B. Wainwright, and A. Martins. Characterisation of the new LNEC shaking table. 1996. LNEC/C3ES report 148/96.Google Scholar
  8. S. Dermitzakis and S. Mahin., Development of sub-structuring techniques for on-line computer controlled seismic performance testing. California, USA, 1985. UCB/EERC report 85/04.Google Scholar
  9. J. Donea, G. Magonette, P. Negro, P. Pegon, A. Pinto, and G. erzeletti. Pseudo-dynamic capabilities of the ELSA laboratory for the earthquake testing of large structure Earthquake Spectra, 12(1), 1996.Google Scholar
  10. F. Emilio, R. Duarte, F. Carvalhal, C. Costa, C. Vaz, and M. Correa. The new LNEC shaking table for earthquake resistance testing. LNEC memory 757. 1989.Google Scholar
  11. D. Jurukovski, L. Tashkov, M. Bojadziev, and F. Zarri. Shaking table test of 1∶30 scale model of the Sports Palace Bologna with a continuous shell covering structure. volume 3, pages 2461–2465, Vienna, Austria August 1994. 10th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Google Scholar
  12. C. Minowa. Miki shaking table presentation during visit at the LNEC/DE Seismic Engineering and Structural Dynamics Division. March 2007.Google Scholar
  13. P. Mote, G. Armer, P. Gefken, D. Curran, D. McCallen, I. Arango, and O. Gurbuz. Strong motion generator for full-scale structural testing at the Nevada test site. Paris, France, September 1998. 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Google Scholar
  14. P. Negro and G. Magonette. Experimental methods in structural dynamics. European Earthquake Engineering, pages 29–39, 1998. year XII, 1.98.Google Scholar
  15. INCEDE newsletter. University of Tokyo, Institute of Industrial Science, International Centre for Disaster Mitigation Engineering, special Great Hanshin Earthquake newsletter issue. January 1995.Google Scholar
  16. N. Ogawa, M. Sato, K. Ohtani, and T. Katayama. Construction of a 3D full-scale earthquake testing facility. Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering, 4(3), 2004. (special issue).Google Scholar
  17. C. Oliveria, J. Guedes, L. Sousa, and A. Costa. The Faial/Pico/S. Joao seismic crises following the July 9th earthquake recorded at the Azores stations (in Portuguese). Faro, Portugal, November 1998. 1st APMG Meterology and Geophysics Symposium and 2nd APMG/AME Portuguese/Spanish Meteorology Encounter.Google Scholar
  18. P. Pegon and J.C. Queval. Structures under seismic actions: Laboratory experimentation (in French). In “Comportement dynamique des betons et genie parasismique”), Paris, France, 2004. Lavoisier editions.Google Scholar
  19. A. Pinto. Earthquake performance of structures. Behavioural, safety and economical aspects, PhD thesis, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. F. Pires, R. Bairrao, and S. Silva. Earthquake behaviour study of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames. Test of model MD6 1995. LNEC/C3ES report 137/95.Google Scholar
  21. F. Pires, J. Rodrigues, A. Costa, and R. Bairrao. Repair of reinforced concrete frames infilled with masonry walls. Behaviour study under cyclic horizontal actions. Test of model I9R (in Portuguese). 1998. LNEC/C3ES report 146/98.Google Scholar
  22. J. Portugal, L. Madeira, and C. Santos. Geotechnical Department centrifuge. Reception and operation starting (in Portuguese). 1995. LNEC/DG/CPCE report 290/95.Google Scholar
  23. P. Shing and S. Mahin. Experimental error propagation in pseudo-dynamic testing. California, USA, 1983. UCB/EERC report 83/12.Google Scholar
  24. D. Stoten and E. Gomez. Adaptive control of shaking tables using the MCS — Minimal Control Synthesis algorithm Phil. Trans. Royal Society of London, (259), 2001.Google Scholar
  25. K. Takanashi. Non-linear earthquake response analysis of structures by a computer-actuator on-line system Bulletin of the Earthquake Resistant Structures Research Centre, (8), 1975. Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  26. F. Taucer. Recent advances and future needs in experimental earthquake engineering. CASCADE report n.7. ISBN 972-49-1971-4, January 2005.Google Scholar
  27. F. Taucer and G. Franchioni. Directory of European facilities for seismic and dynamic tests in support of industry. CASCADE report n.6. ISBN 972-49-1970-6, January 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CISM, Udine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rogério Bairrão
    • 1
  1. 1.LNEC / DE / NESDELisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations