1. Project Collaborators and Contributors: Derek Skolnik (Sr. Project Engineer, Kinemetrics) Aziz Akhtary (Grad Student Researcher, CSU Fullerton) Leonardo Massone (Assist. Prof., Univ. of Chile, Santiago) Juan Carlos de la Llerra (Dean, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago) John Wallace (Professor, UCLA) Anne Lemnitzer (Assist. Prof, Cal State Fullerton) 1

2. Preparation of Instrumentation Layouts Equipment provided by NEES@UCLA Instrumentation used: 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. Buildings selected based on: - Access and permission -Typical design layouts representative for Chile and the US -Local collaborator for building selection: Juan Carlos de la Llerra Ambient Vibration 2 Aftershocks Ambient Vibration 30 Aftershocks Ambient Vibration 4 Aftershocks 5

6. Building A: -23 story RC office building in Santiago’s Business district -Structural system: 2 inner cores with surrounding frame - Post Earthquake structural damage: None 6

7. Instrumentation Layout: N Level 1: Elevators Stairway Glass-facade DAQ Roof: 7

8. Building B: -10 story RC residential building - Structural system: Shear Walls -Post Earthquake damage: I. Shear wall failure, II.Column buckling, III. Extensive non-structural failure, IV.slab bending & concrete spalling 8

9. Repetitive Damage at the -1 level (Parking level): Wall-Slab intersections Observed Damages in the 10 story shear wall building: 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. Floor Plan: Ground Floor (-1 Level) 14

15. Instrumentation on Ground Level: Triaxial sensor 15

16. Instrumentation Layout: First Floor (shear wall instrumentation) Instrumented floors: -Parking Level (-1) : 1 triaxial sensor -2 nd floor : 3 triaxial sensors -9 th floor : 3 uniaxial sensors -Roof : 3 uniaxial sensors 16

17. Shear Wall Instrumentation 17

18. Instrumentation Layout: Exemplarily for 2 nd floor 3 triaxial sensors 18

19. 3 uniaxial sensors 9 th Floor instrumentation: 19

20. 20

21. Selected aftershock: 2010 05/02 14:52:39 UTC Earthquake info Chilean Seismic Network 21

22. Roof 9th 2nd -1 st 22

23. Roof 9th 2nd -1 st 23

24. Figure 4: Shear-flexure interaction for a wall subject to lateral loading. (adapted from Massone and Wallace, 2004) 24

25. Vertical LVDTs Diagonal LVDTs 25

26. The rotation for flexure was taken at the base of the wall (so the top displacement is multiplied by the wall height), which is the largest value expected for flexure. If we assume that the flexure corresponds to a rotation at wall mid-height, the flexural component should be multiplied by 0.5. 26

27. 3 triaxial sensors 27

28. Torsion and rocking Rocking about the x axis = orientation of shear wall (corresponds to shear wall cracking) NOTE CHANGE IN SCALE FOR X- AXIS ROCKING 3 triaxial sensors 28

29. 29

30. Roof 9th 2nd -1 st 30

31. -Analysis of more aftershock measurements (Stronger intensities) -Transfer Functions -Further Analysis of Modal Components -Building modeling in commercially available software (e.g., SAP 2000 and others) -Provide data for shear wall research (cyclic model studies) 31

32. Building C: “Golf” -10 story office building -Unoccupied except for floors # 2 & 8 - Inner core shear wall with outer frame system - No structural damage - 4 parking levels (-1 through -4) - Instrumented floors: 1 & 10 - Sensors: 8 accelerometers 32

33. Building: Golf 80, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile 33

34. The only earthquake damage observed: Minor glass breaking on outside Fassade 34

35. Floor plan for typical floor: 35

36. Foto’s from the inside: 10 th floor 36

37. 37

38. Chilean Seismic Network info for earthquake: 2010-03-26- 14:54:08 UTC 38

39. Center acc were calculated assuming rigid diaphragms and using the following equations: v1v1 u2u2 u1u1 u0u0 v0v0 00 v2v2 u4u4 v2v2 u3u3 v3v3 39

40. Max values 10 th floor: E_W Center acc : 3.5 cm/s2 Corner acc: 4.3 cm/s2 N_S Center acc: 2.8 cm/s2 Edge: 5.0 cm/s2 Max values 1 st floor: E_W Center acc : 1.2 cm/s2 Corner acc: 1.2 cm/s2 N_S Center acc: 1.2 cm/s2 Corner: 1.2 cm/s2 No Torsion Torsion 40

41. Max values 10 th floor: E_W Center acc : 1.15 mm Corner acc: 1.2 mm N_S Center acc: 0.74 mm Edge: 1.24mm Max values 1 st floor: E_W Center acc : 0.31 mm Corner acc: 0.32 mm N_S Center acc: 0.29 mm Edge: 0.29 mm Perfect rigid body motion at 1 st floor Twisting / Torsion on 10 th floor 41

42. 42

43. 43

44. Understanding building modal behavior Building modeling and more advanced system identification (e.g., transfer functions) to obtain better modal properties (e.g., damping, mode shapes… if possible) Test rigid diaphragm assumption using sensor redundancy on floors (e.g., comparing floor center motions using different subsets of sensors) Comprehensive building modeling in SAP 2000 or equivalent software packages Data sharing at the NEES platform 44

45.  Airport regulations (invitation letters, label equipment as non stationary)  Trigger and record mechanisms (set minimum recording time vs. EQ duration + Dt)  Instrumentation cabling (<100m, Power supplies)  Time Frame (aftershock span)  Local collaboration (building access, installation, translations)  Equipment Transportation (luggage vs shipping)  Take Pictures of every sensor with reference on it…. 45

46. US Team Members: Anne Lemnitzer (CSUFullerton) Alberto Salamanca (NEES @ UCLA) Aditya Jain (Digitexx) Marc Sereci (Digitexx; EERI team member) John Wallace (UCLA, Instrumentation PI) Local Graduate Student Members : Matias Chacom, (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Javier Encina, (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Joao Maques, (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Local Faculty Collaborators Juan C. De La Llera M. (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Leonardo Massone (University of Chile, Santiago) CO-Pis on the NSF Rapid Proposal Robert Nigbor (UCLA) John Wallace (UCLA) On Site Instrumentation Team 46

47. 47