Development of dynamic structural testing to current state-of-the-art hybrid testing

Even though computational power used for structural analysis is ever increasing, there is still a fundamental need for testing in structural engineering, either for validation of complex numerical models or to assess material behaviour. In addition to analysis of structures using scale models, many structural engineers are aware to some extent of cyclic and shake-table test methods, but less so of ‘hybrid testing’. The latter is a combination of physical testing (e.g. hydraulic
actuators) and computational modelling (e.g. finite element modelling). Over the past 40 years, hybrid testing of engineering structures has developed from concept through to maturity to become a reliable and accurate dynamic testing technique. The hybrid test method provides users with some additional benefits that standard dynamic testing methods do not, and the method is more cost-effective in comparison to shake-table testing. This article aims to provide the reader with a basic understanding of the hybrid test method, including its contextual development and potential as a dynamic testing technique.

Overview of Seismic Hybrid Testing

Even though computational power used for structural analysis is ever increasing, there is still a fundamental need for testing in structural engineering, either for validation of complex numerical models or material behaviour. Many structural engineers/researchers are aware of cyclic and shake table test methods, but less so hybrid testing. Over the past 40 years, hybrid testing of engineering structures has developed from concept through to maturity to become a reliable and accurate dynamic testing technique. In particular, the application of hybrid testing as a seismic testing technique in recent years has increased notably. The hybrid test method provides users with some additional benefits that standard dynamic testing methods do not, and the method is much more cost effective in comparison to shake table testing. This paper aims to provide the reader with a basic understanding of the hybrid test method and its potential as a dynamic testing technique.

Creating New Design-Build-Test Experiences as Outputs of Undergraduate Design-Build-Test Projects

This paper describes a methodology of using individual engineering undergraduate student projects as a means of effectively and efficiently developing new Design-Build-Test (DBT) learning experiences and challenges.
A key aspect of the rationale for this approach is that it benefits all parties. The student undertaking the individual project gets an authentic experience of producing a functional artefact, which has been the result of a design process that addresses conception, design, implementation and operation. The supervising faculty member benefits from live prototyping of new curriculum content and resources with a student who is at a similar level of knowledge and experience as the intended end users of the DBT outputs. The multiple students who ultimately undertake the DBT experiences / challenges benefit from the enhanced nature of a learning experience which has been “road tested” and optimised.
To demonstrate the methodology the paper will describe a case study example of an individual project completed in 2015. This resulted in a DBT design challenge with a theme of designing a catapult for throwing table tennis balls, the device being made from components laser cut from medium density fibreboard (MDF). Further three different modes of operation will be described which use the same resource materials but operate over different timescales and with different learning outcomes, from an icebreaker exercise focused on developing team dynamics through to full DBT where students get an opportunity to experience the full impact of their design decisions by competing against other students with a catapult they have designed and built themselves.

Test stimulus characteristics determine the perceived speed of the dynamic motion aftereffect

Using a speed-matching task, we measured the speed tuning of the dynamic motion aftereVect (MAE). The results of our Wrst experiment, in which we co-varied dot speed in the adaptation and test stimuli, revealed a speed tuning function. We sought to tease apart what contribution, if any, the test stimulus makes towards the observed speed tuning. This was examined by independently manipulating dot speed in the adaptation and test stimuli, and measuring the eVect this had on the perceived speed of the dynamic MAE. The results revealed that the speed tuning of the dynamic MAE is determined, not by the speed of the adaptation stimulus, but by the local motion characteristics of the dynamic test stimulus. The role of the test stimulus in determining the perceived speed of the dynamic MAE was conWrmed by showing that, if one uses a test stimulus containing two sources of local speed information, observers report seeing a transparent MAE; this is despite the fact that adaptation is induced using a single-speed stimulus. Thus while the adaptation stimulus necessarily determines perceived direction of the dynamic MAE, its perceived speed is determined by the test stimulus. This dissociation of speed and direction supports the notion that the processing of these two visual attributes may be partially independent.