Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Loading protocols for European regions of low to moderate seismicity

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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):33–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • AISC (2005) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute for Steel Construction, Chicago

  • ATC-24 (1992) Guidelines for cyclic seismic testing of components of steel structures for buildings. Applied Technology Council, California

  • Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Rinaldis D et al (2004) Dissemination of european strong motion data, vol 2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Behr RA, Belarbi A (1996) Seismic test methods for architectural glazing systems. Earthq Spectra 12(1):129–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr AJ (2012) Ruaumoko—a computer program for inelastic time history analysis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Brussels

  • CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Standard EN 1998-3, Brussels

  • 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 Document

  • Dowing SD, Socie DF (1982) Simple rainflow cycle counting algorithms. Int J Fatique 4(1):31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EN-12512 (2001) Timber structures-test methods. Cyclic testing of joints made with mechanical fasteners, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

  • Fardis M (2009) Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Filiatrault A, Isoda H, Folz B (2003) Hysteretic damping of wood framed buildings. Eng Struct 25:461–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA-273 (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

  • FEMA-461 (2007) Interim protocols for determining seismic performance characteristics of structural and non-structural components through laboratory testing. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

  • Freeman SA (2004) Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET J Earthq Technol 41:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Pavia

  • Gatto K, Uang C (2003) Effects of loading protocol on the cyclic response of woodframe shearwalls. J Struct Eng 129(10):1384–1393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardini D, Wiemer S, Fäh D, Deichmann N (2004) Seismic hazard assessment of Switzerland. Swiss Seismological Service, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1049–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iervolino I, Maddaloni G, Cosenza E (2008) Eurocode 8 compliant real record sets for seismic analysis of structures. J Earthq Eng 12(1):54–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO-21581 (2010) Timber structures-static and cyclic lateral load test methods for shear walls. International Standards Organization, Geneva

  • Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, California

  • Krawinkler H, Parisi F, Ibarra L, Ayoub A, Medina R (2001) Development of a testing protocol for woodframe structures. CUREE, publication No. W-02

  • 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 engineering

  • MATLAB 7.1 (2010) The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA

  • Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Direct displacement based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Priestley MJN, Grant DN (2005) Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis. J Earthq Eng 9(suppl2):229–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 program

  • Retamales R, Mosqueda G, Filiatrault A, Reinhorn A (2011) Testing protocol for experimental seismic qualification of distributed non-structural systems. Earthq Spectra 27(3):835–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards PW, Uang C (2006) Testing protocol for short links in eccentrically braced frames. J Struct Eng 132(8):1183–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SIA 261 (2003) Actions on structures. Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, Zurich

  • Stewart WG (1987) The seismic design of plywood sheathed shear walls. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the two reviewers for their comments that helped to improve the manuscript. Financial support for this research was provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation within project NRP-66 (Resource Wood, Project No. 406640-136900). The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsoring organization.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Panagiotis E. Mergos

    Present address: City University London, Northampton Square, London , EC1V 0HB, UK

Authors and Affiliations

  1. École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland

    Panagiotis E. Mergos & Katrin Beyer

  2. EPFL ENAC IIC EESD, GC B2 504 (Bâtiment GC), Station 18, Office GCB2504, 1015 , Lausanne, Switzerland

    Katrin Beyer

Authors
  1. Panagiotis E. Mergos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katrin Beyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrin Beyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mergos, P.E., Beyer, K. Loading protocols for European regions of low to moderate seismicity. Bull Earthquake Eng 12, 2507–2530 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9603-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9603-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation