nonlinear simulations for soil-structure interaction and ...sokocalo.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jeremic/ real...

Motivation Real ESSI for Performance-Based Design Summary

Nonlinear Simulations for Soil-StructureInteraction and Performance-Based Design

Boris Jeremic

University of California, DavisLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley

A University of California Pacific Rim ForumThe Earthquake Resilience of Nuclear Facilities

Berkeley, CA. June, 2015

Jeremic

Real ESSI for Performance-Based Design

http://sokocalo.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jeremic/



Outline

Motivation

Real ESSI for Performance-Based DesignInelastic Modeling6D Seismic Motions

Summary

Jeremic




Introduction

MotivationI Improve seismic design of soil structure systems

I Earthquake Soil Structure Interaction (ESSI) in time andspace, plays a decisive role in successes and failures

I Accurate following and directing (!) the flow of seismicenergy in ESSI system to optimize for

I Safety andI Economy

I High fidelity numerical modeling and simulation tool toanalyze realistic ESSI behavior: The Real ESSI Simulator( aka: Vrlo Prosto, Muy Fácil, Molto Facile, ,

, Πραγματικά Εύκολο, , Très Facile,Vistinski Lesno, Wirklich Einfach)

Jeremic




Introduction

Modeling and Parametric UncertaintyI Modeling uncertainty: (unrealistic) modeling simplifications

for important featuresI Inelastic material: soil, rock, concrete, steel; Contacts,

foundation–soil, dry, saturated slip–gap; Nonlinear buoyantforces; Isolators, Dissipators

I Seismic Motions: 6D, inclined, body and surface waves(translations, rotations); Incoherency

I Parametric Uncertainty:

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

SPT N Value

You

ng’s

Mod

ulus

, E (

kPa)

E = (101.125*19.3) N 0.63

−10000 0 10000

0.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

Residual (w.r.t Mean) Young’s Modulus (kPa)

Nor

mal

ized

Fre

quen

cy

Jeremic




Introduction

Predictive Capabilities

I Verification: provides evidence that the model is solvedcorrectly. Mathematics issue. Well developed (for the RealESSI Simulator).

I Validation: provides evidence that the correct model issolved. Physics issue. Work in progress, a new US-DOEproject.

I Prediction: use of computational model to foretell the stateof a physical system under consideration under conditionsfor which the computational model has not been validated.

I Goal is to predict and inform, not diagnose or fit.

Jeremic




Inelastic Modeling

Outline

Motivation


Summary

Jeremic




Inelastic Modeling

Real ESSI Models

I Full (6D) seismic motion input (body and surface waves)

I Inelastic (saturated or dry) soil/rock

I Inelastic (saturated or dry) contact (foundation – soil/rock)

I Buoyant (nonlinear) forces

I Inelastic structural modeling

I Verification (extensive) and Validation (in progress)

Jeremic




Inelastic Modeling

Inelastic Contact, Base Slip and Gap

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (s)

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (s)

-40

-20

0

20

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

/s2)

Time (s)

Slip BehaviorNo-slip Behavior

-40

-20

0

20

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

/s2)

Time (s)


-40

-20

0

20

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

/s2)

Time (s)


-40

-20

0

20

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Acc

eler

atio

n (m

/s2)

Time (s)


top X top Z bottom X bottom Z

4.5s 4.6s 4.7s 4.8s

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

X (m)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Y (

m)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

X (m)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Y (

m)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

X (m)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Y (

m)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

X (m)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110Y

(m

)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

4.9s 5.0s 5.1s 5.2s

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

X (m)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Y (

m)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

X (m)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Y (

m)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

X (m)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Y (

m)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

X (m)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Y (

m)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ene

rgy

(kJ)

Time (s)

Jeremic




Inelastic Modeling

Uncertain Inelastic Wave Propagation

I Probabilistic Elasto-Plasticity

I Stochastic Elastic-PlasticFinite Element Method

0 0.0108 0.0216 0.0324 0.0432 0.0540

0.00005

0.0001

0.00015

0.0002

0.00025

0.0003

Stre

ss (

MPa

)

Strain (%)

Mode

DeterministicSolutionStd. Deviations

Mean

−400

0

200400

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

5

10

15

20

Tim

e (s

ec)

PDF

Displacement (mm)

−200

−1000 −500 500 1000

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

Displacement (mm)

PDF

Real Soil Data

Conservative Guess

−1000 −500 500 1000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

CD

F

Displacement (mm)

Real Soil DataConservative Guess

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f E

xce

edan

ceo

f 5

0 c

m (

%)

Time (s)

Conservative Guess

Real Site

Characterized SiteExcellently

80

60

40

20

05 10 15 20 250

Jeremic




6D Seismic Motions

Outline

Motivation


Summary

Jeremic




6D Seismic Motions

6D Motions: Free Field

Jeremic


http://sokocalo.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jeremic/lecture_notes_online_material/_Chapter_Applications_ESSI_for_NPPs/Free_Field_small_model_April2015/movie_input.mp4

http://sokocalo.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jeremic/lecture_notes_online_material/_Chapter_Applications_ESSI_for_NPPs/Free_Field_small_model_April2015/movie_input_closeup.mp4



6D Seismic Motions

From 6D to 1D?I Record a full 6D (3D) motions in one horizontal directionI Develop a vertically propagating shear wave in 1DI Apply 1D vertically propagating shear wave

Jeremic




6D Seismic Motions

6D and 1D: Free Field

Jeremic


http://sokocalo.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jeremic/lecture_notes_online_material/_Chapter_Applications_Earthquake_Soil_Structure_Interaction_General_Aspects/ESSI_VisIt_movies_Jose_19May2015/movie_ff_3d.mp4

http://sokocalo.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jeremic/lecture_notes_online_material/_Chapter_Applications_Earthquake_Soil_Structure_Interaction_General_Aspects/ESSI_VisIt_movies_Jose_19May2015/movie_ff_1d.mp4



6D Seismic Motions

6D vs 1D: NPP ESSI Response

Jeremic


http://sokocalo.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jeremic/lecture_notes_online_material/_Chapter_Applications_Earthquake_Soil_Structure_Interaction_General_Aspects/ESSI_VisIt_movies_Jose_19May2015/movie_2_npps.mp4



Summary

New 5 Year U.S. DOE Project

I Development of advanced computational tools formodeling and simulating the earthquake response ofnuclear facilities

I Enhance understanding of the expected levels of damage,and margins against failure, for critical facilities subjectedto earthquake ground motions

I Project Team:I Dr. David McCallen (Project Leader), UCOP and LBNLI Prof. Ian Buckle (Validation Experiments), UNRI Prof. Boris Jeremic (Code development), UCD and LBNL

Jeremic




Summary

Concluding RemarksI High fidelity numerical modeling and simulation (inelastic,

time domain) used to reduce modeling uncertainty

I Parametric uncertainty needs to be taken into account

I Goal is to predict and inform, not fit or diagnose

I Change state of practice (and research)

I Education (designers, regulators, owners, &c.) is essential

Jeremic




Summary

Acknowledgement

I Funding from and collaboration with the US-NRC,US-DOE, US-NSF, CNSC, Shimizu Corp., and AREVA NPGmbH is greatly appreciated,

I Collaborators: Dr. McCallen (UCOP and LBNL), Prof.Buckle (UNR), Dr. Kammerer (UCB/PEER), Dr. Budnitz(LBNL), Prof. Kavvas (UCD), Prof. Sett (UB), Mr. Orbovic(CNSC) Prof. Pisanò (TU Delft), Mr. Watanabe (Shimizu),Mr. Vlaski (AREVA NP GmbH), and UCD students: Mr.Abell, Mr. Karapiperis, Mr. Feng, Mr. Sinha, Mr. Luo

Jeremic



nonlinear simulations for soil-structure interaction and ...sokocalo.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jeremic/ real...

Documents