Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 2507–2530 | Cite as

Loading protocols for European regions of low to moderate seismicity

Original Research Paper

Abstract

Existing loading protocols for quasi-static cyclic testing of structures are based on recordings from regions of high seismicity. For regions of low to moderate seismicity they overestimate imposed cumulative damage demands. Since structural capacities are a function of demand, existing loading protocols applied to specimens representative of structures in low to moderate seismicity regions might underestimate structural strength and deformation capacity. To overcome this problem, this paper deals with the development of cyclic loading protocols for European regions of low to moderate seismicity. Cumulative damage demands imposed by a set of 60 ground motion records are evaluated for a wide variety of SDOF systems that reflect the fundamental properties of a large portion of the existing building stock. The ground motions are representative of the seismic hazard level corresponding to a 2 % probability of exceedance in 50 years in a European moderate seismicity region. To meet the calculated cumulative damage demands, loading protocols for different structural types and vibration periods are developed. For comparison, cumulative seismic demands are also calculated for existing protocols and a set of records that was used in a previous study on loading protocols for regions of high seismicity. The median cumulative demands for regions of low to moderate seismicity are significantly less than those of existing protocols and records of high seismicity regions. For regions of low to moderate seismicity the new protocols might therefore result in larger strength and deformation capacities and hence in more cost-effective structural configurations or less expensive retrofit measures.

Keywords

Quasi-static Loading protocol Seismic demands  Cumulative damage  Low to moderate seismicity 

References

  1. Aldemir A, Eberik MA, Demirel O, Sucuoǧlu H (2013) Seismic performance assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings with a hybrid modeling approach. Earthq Spectra 29(1):33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali Q, Khan AN, Ashraf M, Ahmed A, Alam B, Ahmad N, Javed M, Rahman S, Fahim M, Umar M (2014) Seismic performance of stone masonry buildings used in the Himalayan belt. Earthq Spectra (Preprint)Google Scholar
  3. AISC (2005) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute for Steel Construction, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. ATC-24 (1992) Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures for buildings. Applied Technology Council, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  5. Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Rinaldis D et al (2004) Dissemination of european strong motion data, vol 2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Behr RA, Belarbi A (1996) Seismic test methods for architectural glazing systems. Earthq Spectra 12(1):129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr AJ (2012) Ruaumoko—a computer program for inelastic time history analysis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  8. CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Standard EN 1998-1, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Standard EN 1998-3, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark P, Frank K, Krawinkler H, Shaw R (1997) Protocol for fabrication, inspection, testing and documentation of beam-column connection tests and other experimental specimens. Report No. SAC/BD-97/02, Steel Project Background DocumentGoogle Scholar
  11. Dowing SD, Socie DF (1982) Simple rainflow cycle counting algorithms. Int J Fatique 4(1):31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EN-12512 (2001) Timber structures-test methods. Cyclic testing of joints made with mechanical fasteners, European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Fardis M (2009) Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Filiatrault A, Isoda H, Folz B (2003) Hysteretic damping of wood framed buildings. Eng Struct 25:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FEMA-273 (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. FEMA-461 (2007) Interim protocols for determining seismic performance characteristics of structural and non-structural components through laboratory testing. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman SA (2004) Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET J Earthq Technol 41:1–13Google Scholar
  18. Frumento S, Magenes G, Morandi P, Calvi GM (2009) Interpretation of experimental shear tests on clay brick masonry walls and evaluation of q-factors for seismic design. Research Report No 02.09, IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  19. Gatto K, Uang C (2003) Effects of loading protocol on the cyclic response of woodframe shearwalls. J Struct Eng 129(10):1384–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giardini D, Wiemer S, Fäh D, Deichmann N (2004) Seismic hazard assessment of Switzerland. Swiss Seismological Service, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  21. Hutchinson T, Zhang J, Charles E (2011) Development of a drift protocol for seismic performance evaluation considering a damage index concept. Earthq Spectra 27(4):1049–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iervolino I, Maddaloni G, Cosenza E (2008) Eurocode 8 compliant real record sets for seismic analysis of structures. J Earthq Eng 12(1):54–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ISO-21581 (2010) Timber structures-static and cyclic lateral load test methods for shear walls. International Standards Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  25. Krawinkler H, Gupta A, Medina R, Luco N (2000) Loading histories for seismic performance testing of SMRF components and assemblies. Report SAC/BD-00/10, SAC Joint Venture, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  26. Krawinkler H, Parisi F, Ibarra L, Ayoub A, Medina R (2001) Development of a testing protocol for woodframe structures. CUREE, publication No. W-02Google Scholar
  27. Krawinkler H (2009) Loading histories for cyclic tests in support of performance assessment of structural components. In: 3rd International conference on advances in experimental structural engineeringGoogle Scholar
  28. MATLAB 7.1 (2010) The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Direct displacement based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  30. Priestley MJN, Grant DN (2005) Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis. J Earthq Eng 9(suppl2):229–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Porter ML (1987) Sequential phased displacement (SPD) procedure for TCCMAR testing. In: 3rd meeting of the joint technical coordinating committee on masonry research, US-Japan coordinated programGoogle Scholar
  32. Retamales R, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A, Reinhorn A (2011) Testing protocol for experimental seismic qualification of distributed non-structural systems. Earthq Spectra 27(3):835–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richards PW, Uang C (2006) Testing protocol for short links in eccentrically braced frames. J Struct Eng 132(8):1183–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SIA 261 (2003) Actions on structures. Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  35. Stewart WG (1987) The seismic design of plywood sheathed shear walls. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, New ZealandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.City University LondonLondon UK
  3. 3.EPFL ENAC IIC EESDLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations