Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 55

Seismic Performance of Concrete

Ductbanks for Buried Transmission


Cables: Full Scale Tests and FE
Modeling
Shakhzod Takhirov, PhD, PE
and
Khalid Mosalam, Professor
UC Berkeley
MiniSymposium on Hybrid Simulation: Minho
University, Guimaraes, Portugal

October 2, 2012

Co-authors

Khalid Mosalam (PI, UC Berkeley)


Siddayah Yarra (UC Berkeley)
Nicolas Peralta (UC Berkeley)
Sangjoon Park (UC Berkeley)

Outline

Full scale tests of duckbanks


Component tests on PVC and HDPE pipes
Component tests on pipe/concrete interaction
Pure shear tests
Finite element analysis

Pros and Cons


Pros

Aesthetic advantage: overhead power lines can be messy and


congested especially in urban areas. The duckbank provide
seamless power distribution/transmission.
Wind and ice loads are avoided
Interactions with vegetation is avoided: trimming branches, etc.
In some areas, like downtown districts, they are often more
practical than overhead lines.

Pros and Cons


Cons

Several studies show that they are costing 10


times more than overhead distribution or
transmission lines.
Have to deal with existing underground lifelines
Time consuming to install
Shall meet certain seismic design requirements
Design shall take into account liquefaction of
surrounding soil
Fault crossing shall be addressed
Underground lines are much more difficult and
expensive to work on when problems arise.
They require earth-moving equipment and
specialized technicians.
Power cable is vulnerable to kinking, scratching,
and other mechanical damages

Test Setup and Specimens


Test Setup

3 point loading
2 ends represent pinned connection
Load applied at mid span by a hydraulic
jack
Position transducers to monitor deflection
at many points
Strain gages on the pipes and rebars (if
any)
Load and displacement monitored from at
the actuator

Specimen #2: Test Results


Specimen #2: Instrumentation

Ductile performance
Peak load at 119.6 kip for vertical load
Testing was stopped due to travel limitations of the setup
Conventional position transducers and strain gages were used
High definition laser scans were taken at selected peak loads
and displacements
High definition still images were taken with certain time
increment
All scans and images were correlated to data points
As of today about 200Gb of data had been generated

Specimen #2: Test Results


Specimen #2: shortcomings of conventional
instruments

Position transducers monitoring deflection of the ductbank


were effective until large deflections were encountered

Small
deflections

Large
deflections

Specimen #2: Test Results


Specimen #2: shortcomings of conventional
instruments

Failure rate of strain gages was high


Even for component tests strain gage data was inconsistent
Strain gage glue does not develop a strong bond to HDPE

10

Specimen #2: Test Results


Specimen #2: novel techniques of measurements

High resolution laser scans conducted at selected load and


displacement peaks
High resolution still images were taken at certain time intervals

Camera position

Scanner position

Specimen #2: 2D+T Crack


Initiation, Propagation and Growth

11

Images were taken with the same time increment and


correlated to data points (1,200 images at 21 Mpx for Sp#2)

Original image with "cracks" marked


1400

1600

1800

Original image with "cracks" marked

2000

2040

2200

2060
2400

2600

2080

2000

2100

2120

2140

2500

2520

2540

2560

2580

2600

2620

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

3400

3600

12

Laser Scans of Specimen #1


Laser Scans Before, During, and After Testing

Exterior dimensions
from laser scans for
cross section

33.9

Leica
ScanStation
C10

height=0.86m

Beam height (m)

0.8
0.6
0.4

width=0.79m

31.1

Line-B shown in (b)


length=8.08m
0

0.2

Section-A shown in (b)

0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Beam width (m)

0.8

2
4
6
Beam horizontal length (m)

Exterior dimensions
from laser scans for
elevation

12

13

Laser Scans of Specimen #1


Laser Scans Before: initial imperfection
Concrete Beam outline
Beam height (m)

0.8

0.24m 0.22m 0.21m 0.20m 0.20m 0.21m 0.23m

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.24m 0.23m 0.22m


0

3
4
5
6
Beam horizontal length (m)

Location of conduits from the laser scan of SP1


13

Specimen # 2: Laser Scans


Before, During and After
Scan were taken at certain intervals and correlated to
data points

All scans were recorded in coordinate system of the scanner


Each scan was separated based on a time stamp and correlated to
a data point
Total of 21 scans were recorded

14

Specimen # 2: Laser Scans


Before, During and After
As an example scan vs. data point correlation of a
selection of scans is presented
Scan#16 at 119.31 kip
120

100
Scan#10 at 90.01 kip
Force, kip

80
Scan#20 at 13.50 in
60

40

20
Scan#2 at 10.03 kip
0

10
Displacement, in

15

15

Specimen # 2: Laser Scans


Before, During and After
Scan #20 was recorded at 13.5 in. displacement

16

Specimen # 2: Laser Scans


Before, During and After

17

Scan #20 was recorded at 13.5 in. displacement


Curvature of Ductbank Approximated by a Spline, in
35
34.8
34.6

Elevation, in

34.4
34.2
34
33.8
33.6
33.4
33.2
10

11

12
13
West-east direction, ft

14

15

Specimen # 2: Laser Scans


Before, During and After
Scan #2 (start) vs. Scan #20 (end)

Scan #2 at 10 kip

Scan #20 at 13.5 in

18

Specimen # 2: Laser Scans


Before, During and After
Scan #10 (start) vs. Scan #20 (end)

Scan #10 at 90 kip

Scan #20 at 13.5 in

19

Specimen # 2: Laser Scans


Before, During and After
Scan #16 (start) vs. Scan #20 (end)

Scan #16 at 119 kip

Scan #20 at 13.5 in

20

21

Details of component tests

Compression tests
Slippage tests
Tension tests
Shear tests

22

Compression Test Specimens

Group
E

Sp.
Conduit
No.
13
PVC
14
PVC
15
PVC
16
PVC
17
PVC
18
PVC
19
PVC
20
PVC
21
PVC
22
HDPE
23
HDPE
24
HDPE

Joint
No
No
No
Bell/spigot adhesive joint
Bell/spigot adhesive joint
Bell/spigot adhesive joint
Sleeve adhesive joint
Sleeve adhesive joint
Sleeve adhesive joint
No
No
No

Monitoring
requirements
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force

Overall Length
22"
22"
22"
22"
22"
22"
22"
22"
22"
22"
22"
22"

23

Tension Test Specimens

Group Sp. No. Conduit

Joint

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

No
No
No
Bell/spigot adhesive joint
Bell/spigot adhesive joint
Bell/spigot adhesive joint
Sleeve adhesive joint
Sleeve adhesive joint
Sleeve adhesive joint
No
No
No

PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
PVC
HDPE
HDPE
HDPE

Monitoring
requirements
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain
Force, strain

Overall Length
46"
46"
46"
46"
46"
46"
46"
46"
46"
46"
46"
46"

24

Slippage Test Specimens


Slippage tests

Group

Sp. No.

Conduit

Joint

Test

Monitoring requirements Overall Length

25

PVC

No

Bond capacity (slip)

Force/displacement

29"

26

HDPE

No

Bond capacity (slip)

Force/displacement

29"

27

PVC

Bell adhesive joint

Bond capacity (slip)

Force/displacement

29"

28

PVC

Sleeve adhesive joint

Bond capacity (slip)

Force/displacement

29"

Shear Test Specimens (PVC no


Joint)

Group

Sp. No.

Conduit

Joint

Monitoring
requirements
Displacement, Damage
state of conduit

29

PVC

No

30

PVC

No

Configuration

Conduit w/ end anchorage, encased in 24"x24"


concrete. Form notch at mid-span
0" notch
Conduit w/ end anchorage, encased in 24"x24"
Displacement, Damage
concrete. Form notch at mid-span
state of conduit
1/8" notch

25

Overall
Length
96"

96"

26

Compression Test Results

Bell joint: PVC pipe


Sleeve joint: PVC pipe
No joint: PVC pipe
No joint: HDPE pipe

27

Bell Joint: PVC pipe

Used 200 kip UTM for


loading
Loading caps were added
to avoid premature local
buckling at loading point.
Loading Caps were grouted
and leveled for loading
3 sample were tested
Only force was monitored
direct from UTM.
Local buckling was
observed at joint
Consistent failure modes
were observed.

Force Vs. Time plot for PVC Bell


Joint

28

29

Sleeve Joint: PVC pipe

Used 200 kip UTM for


loading
Loading caps were added
to avoid premature local
buckling at loading point.
3 sample were tested
Only force was monitored
Local buckling was
observed
Consistent failure modes
were observed.

Force Vs. Time plot for PVC Sleeve


Joint

30

31

No Joint: PVC pipe

Used 200 kip UTM for loading


Loading caps were added to
avoid premature local buckling
at loading point.
3 sample were tested
Local buckling was observed
Only force was monitored
Consistent failure modes were
observed.
Loading time is variable but
still got consistent results

Force Vs. Time plot for PVC No


Joint

32

33

No Joint: HDPE pipe

Used 200 kip UTM for loading


Loading caps were added to
avoid premature local buckling at
loading point.
3 sample were tested
Local buckling was observed
Only force was monitored
Consistent failure modes were
observed.
Bump

Force Vs. Time plot for HDPE No


Joint

34

Summary of Compression Test


Results

Capacity of sleeve joint is controlled by capacity of the pipe


Capacity of the glue is generally lower
Capacity of bell joint is controlled by a weak link in a
curved part of a joint

Specimen type
PVC Bell Joint
PVC Sleeve Joint
PVC no joint
HDPE no joint

Sp1
33.3
50.4
50.8
25.2

Sp2
33.7
52.3
50.7
25.2

Sp3 , kips ,kips /,%


34.0
33.7
0.35 1.0%
50.9
51.2
0.98 1.9%
49.4
50.3
0.78 1.6%
24.2
24.9
0.58 2.3%

35

Tension tests
Tension grips were
designed to hold conduit in
200-kip UTM
New instrumentation
frame to measure strain by
using novotechnik. Why?
At maximum tension
capacity brittle failure was
observed in PVC with or
without joint.
Only elongation observed
in HDPE case. No failure up
to the displacement limit of
the press

Tension Test Fixtures

Tension Test: PVC no joint


Add tension test result:

Tension Test: PVC Bell Joint


Add tension test result:

Tension Test: PVC Sleeve Joint


Add tension test result:

Tension Test (with unloads): HDPE


Add tension test result:

42

Summary of Tension Test Results

Capacity of sleeve joint is


controlled by capacity of the glue
and as such has a large variation
Capacity of bell joint is close to
capacity of a PVC pipe with no
joints
HDPE has much higher
displacement capacity than PVC
and did not fail up to the capacity
of the press.
Specimen type
PVC No Joint
PVC Bell Joint
PVC Sleeve Joint
HDPE

Sp1
29.1
25.7
10.5
21.7

Sp2
27.7
28.8
5.5
24.1

Sp3 , kips , kips /, %


28.2 28.3
0.71
2.50%
26.7 27.1
1.58
5.80%
13.3
9.8
3.95 40.50%
23.0 22.9
1.20
5.20%

43

Slip Test (Compression)

Bell joint: PVC pipe


Sleeve joint: PVC pipe
No joint: PVC pipe
No joint: HDPE pipe

Bell Joint and Test Setup:


PVC pipe

Used 200 kip UTM for loading


Force and displacement was
monitored
Loading caps were added to avoid
premature local buckling at loading
point.
Used grout until head of concrete
square block to give enough stiffness
and avoid local buckling so that pipe
can slip
Void under the block was introduced
to allow slippage.
Used Novotechnik to measure
Slippage.
Maximum slippage can be 2.

44

45

Sleeve Joint:PVC Pipe

Used 200 kip UTM for loading


Force and displacement was
monitored
Loading caps were added to
avoid premature local buckling
at loading point.
Observed Local buckling then
decided need to add grout until
the head of square block.
Void under the block was
introduced to allow slippage.
Used Novotechnik to measure
slippage.

46

No Joint: PVC Pipe

Used 200 kip UTM for loading


Force and displacement was
monitored
Loading caps were added to
avoid premature local
buckling at loading point.
Used grout until head of
concrete square block to give
enough stiffness and avoid
local buckling so that pipe can
slip
Void under the block was
introduced to allow slippage.
Used Novotechnik to measure
slippage.

47

No Joint: HDPE Pipe

Used 200 kip UTM for loading


Force and displacement was
monitored
Loading caps were added to
avoid premature local buckling
at loading point.
Used grout until head of
concrete square block to give
enough stiffness and avoid local
buckling so that pipe can slip
Used grout until head of
concrete square block to give
enough stiffness and avoid local
buckling so that pipe can slip
Void under the block was
introduced to allow slippage.
Used Novotechnik to measure
slippage.

Comparison of Slip Test Data


(Compression)

48

Comparison of Slip Test Data


(Compression)

HDPE and PVC without a joint performed in similar manner


Presence of a joint increases slippage force
Calibration of the FE model with a fiber optic strain
measuring system is scheduled for October 29th, 2012.

49

50

Slip Test (Tension): in Progress

Bell joint: PVC pipe


Sleeve joint: PVC pipe
No joint: PVC pipe
No joint: HDPE pipe

51

Shear Tests: in Progress


A continuous conduit
crossing a zero width crack
A continuous conduit
crossing a 1/8 width
crack
Specimens constructed
in two phases
Two halves will be
sheared along the crack

52

FE Modeling: in Progress

53

FE Modeling: in Progress

54

Acknowledgements

The research project would not be possible without funding


provided by PG&E.

55

Thank you.
Questions?