A new hybrid simulation technique has been developed to assess the behavior of a structure under hydrodynamic loading. It integrates the computational fluid dynamics and structural hybrid simulation and couples the fluid loading and structural response at each simulation step. The conventional displacement-based and recently developed force-based hybrid simulation approaches are adopted in the structural analysis. The concept, procedure, and required components of the proposed hybrid simulation are introduced in this article. The proposed hybrid simulation has been numerically and physically tested in case of a coastal building impacted by a tsunami wave. It is demonstrated that the force error in the displacement-based approach is significantly larger than that in the force-based approach. The force-based approach allows for a more realistic and reliable structural assessment under tsunami loading.
DermitzakisSNMahinSA (1985) Development of substructuring techniques for on-line computer controlled seismic performance testing. Report no. UCB/EERC-85/04, February. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California.
2.
ForouzanB (2018) Force-based hybrid simulation for structural assessment to coastal hazards. PhD Thesis, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY.
3.
HakunoMShidawaraMHaraT (1969) Dynamic destructive test of a cantilever beam, controlled by an analog-computer. Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers1969(171): 1–9.
4.
HartenALaxPDVan LeerB (1983) On upstream differencing and Godunov-type schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM Review25(1): 35–61.
5.
HigginsCLehrmanJBradnerC, et al. (2014) Hybrid testing of a prestressed girder bridge to resist wave forces. In: 29th US-Japan bridge engineering workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, January.
6.
HilberHMHughesTJRTaylorRL (1977) Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic5(3): 283–292.
7.
IstratiD (2017) Large-scale experiments of tsunami inundation of bridges including fluid-structure-interaction. PhD Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
8.
KareemA (1990) Measurements of pressure and force fields on building models in simulated atmospheric flows. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic36(1): 589–599.
9.
KareemA (2008) Numerical simulation of wind effects: a probabilistic perspective. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic96(10): 1472–1497.
10.
KatoYKandaM (2014) Development of a modified hybrid aerodynamic vibration technique for simulating aerodynamic vibration of structures in a wind tunnel. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic135: 10–21.
11.
NakataN (2013) Effective force testing using a robust loop shaping controller. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic42(2): 261–275.
12.
NakataNKrugEKingA (2014) Experimental implementation and verification of multi-degrees-of-freedom effective force testing. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamic43(3): 413–428.
13.
NewmarkNM (1959) A method of computation for structural dynamics. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division85(3): 67–94.
ShaloudegiK (2017) Design of a 1/5th-scale frame structure and experimental demonstration of hybrid simulation. Master’s Thesis, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY.
16.
ShingPBMahinSA (1990) Experimental error effects in pseudodynamic testing. Journal of Engineering Mechanics116(4): 805–821.
17.
St-GermainPNistorITownsendR (2012) Numerical modeling of the impact with structures of tsunami bores propagating on dry and wet beds using the SPH method. International Journal of Protective Structures3(2): 221–255.
18.
SynolakisCE (1986) The run up of long waves. PhD Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
19.
TakanashiKNakashimaM (1987) Japanese activities on on-line testing. Journal of Engineering Mechanics113(7): 1014–1032.
20.
TamuraYSuganumaSKikuchiH, et al. (1999) Proper orthogonal decomposition of random wind pressure field. Journal of Fluids and Structure13(7): 1069–1095.
21.
ThewaltCRMahinSA (1987) Hybrid solution techniques for generalized pseudodynamic testing. Report no. UCB/EERC-87/09, July. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California.
22.
TitovVSynolakisCE (1995) Modeling of breaking and nonbreaking long-wave evolution and runup using VTCS-2. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering121(6): 308–317.
23.
TitovVSynolakisCE (1998) Numerical modeling of tidal wave runup. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering124(4): 157–171.
24.
WeiZDalrympleRAHéraultA, et al. (2015) SPH modeling of dynamic impact of tsunami bore on bridge piers. Coastal Engineering104: 26–42.
25.
WinterAOMotleyMREberhardMO (2018) Tsunami-like wave loading of individual bridge components. Journal of Bridge Engineering23(2): 04017137.
26.
WuWMarsooliRHeZ (2012) Depth-averaged two-dimensional model of unsteady flow and sediment transport due to noncohesive embankment break/breaching. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering138(6): 503–516.
27.
YangGCausonDMIngramDM (2000) Calculation of compressible flows about complex moving geometries using a three-dimensional Cartesian cut cell method. International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids33(8): 1121–1151.
28.
YangGCausonDMIngramDM, et al. (1997) A Cartesian cut cell method for compressible flows part A: static body problems. Aeronautical Journal101(1002): 47–56.
29.
YehH (1994) Propagation and amplification of tsunamis at coastal boundaries. Nature372(6504): 353–355.
