Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
d
PR: 5.89
K
PR:
/
PR: 3.33
^&
q qq q^
q qq q
q q q q
T T T T
q q q q
^&
q q q q
d
q q q q
q qq q^
q qq q
^&
q q q q
T T T T
q q q q
q qq q^
q qq q
Kobe
Sendai
Hachinohe
El centro
TaIt
Chi Chi
Turkey
Takatori
Iwaki
Olive
Newhall
Fracture
3.1 1ISF Loading Protocols
Figure 7 shows the loading protocol recommended by the Building Research Institute and the Japan
Iron and Steel Federation (JISF 2002), which is commonly accepted in Japan. This loading protocol is
obtained through the response analyses oI Irames. The incremental cyclic loading starting Irom
2
P
u , with intervals oI 2
P
u , where
P
u the elastic beam rotation when the moment oI the beam`s
cantilever end equals its Iull plastic moment
P
M . For each loading step, two cycles should be applied.
Figure 7. Japanese and American recommended loading protocols
3.2 American Loading Protocols
The deIormation controlled loading protocols Irom FEMA 461, AISC 2005, SAC 2000, as well as
ATC-24, which are recommended in the U.S. Ior steel beam testing, are investigated. These loading
protocols are also shown in Figure 7. The descriptions oI these loading protocols are as Iollows:
FEMA 461 (FEMA 2007)
:
This protocol was developed originally Ior testing oI driIt sensitive nonstructural components, but is
applicable in general also to driIt sensitive structural components like beams. It used a targeted
maximum deIormation amplitude
m
A . Loading starts Irom
1
0.048
m
a = A , with
1
1.4
i i
a a
+
= . At each
amplitude, 2 cycles should be applied.
m
A : Targeted maximum deIormation amplitude, which can be
estimated Irom a monotonic test. A recommend value is 0.03 (in terms oI story driIt index / h o ).
AISC 2005 (Seismic provision) (AISC 2005):
This loading protocol is recommended by the American Institute oI Steel Construction Ior testing
beam-to-column moment connections in special and intermediate moment Irames. The cyclic loading
protocols are in terms oI inter-story driIt angle u :
6 cycles at u 0.00375rad6 cycles at u 0.005rad6 cycles at u 0.0075rad4 cycles at
u 0.01rad2 cycles at u 0.015rad2 cycles at u 0.02rad2 cycles at u 0.03rad2 cycles at
u 0.04radContinue loading at increments oIu 0.01rad, 2 cycles at each step.
SAC 2000 (Krawinkler 2000):
Two kinds oI loading protocols are recommended in the SAC 2000 program. First one is the basic
loading history Ior beam-to-column connections in SMRF. The SAC protocol includes more small
elastic cycles because oI the observed Northridge weld Iractures that occurred beIore yielding
occurred (YousseI 1995). The second loading protocol recommended by SAC 2000 is the near-Iault
loading history.
SAC 2000. Basic loading historv: This loading protocol is the same as AISC 2005.
4 up
8 up
0
2 up
6 up
4 up
8 up
2 up
6 up
1.0
0
0.048
1.0
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
(
a
i
/
A
m
)
FEMA 461
0
D
r
i
I
t
a
n
g
l
e
(
r
a
d
.
)
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
SAC 2000
AISC 2005
0
D
r
i
f
t
a
n
g
le
(
r
a
d
.
)
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
A
,
A
B
SAC 2000
Near-Iault
0
Ay
2 Ay
3 Ay
4 Ay
2 Ay
3 Ay
4 Ay
Ay
ATC-24
JISF
SAC 2000. Near-fault loading historv: The cyclic loading protocols are in terms oI inter-story driIt
angle u .
ATC-24 (Krawinkler 1992):
The ATC-24 was speciIically developed Ior components oI steel structures, was one oI the Iirst Iormal
protocols developed in the U.S. Ior seismic perIormance evaluation oI components using a cyclic
loading history. This cyclic loading protocol is in terms oI beam`s elastic deIormation
v
A :
3.3 Beam Performance under Recommended Loading Protocols
The cyclic in-plane analyses oI cantilever beam are conducted, with the input beam Iree-end
deIormation corresponding to each recommended loading protocols in Japan and the U.S.. In order to
compare with the beam perIormance in the Irame, the analytical model oI the cantilever beam is the
same as the beams in the Irame analysis. The JISF and ATC-24 loading protocols are in terms oI beam
rotations, the beam Iree-end deIormation can be obtained directly by times the beam span. However,
the other loading protocols introduced are in terms oI story driIts (
2
H
Lc D
o
+
), which have to be
converted into the beam rotations (
b
u ). Here, the column and panel zone is considered to remain
elastic.
The growing processes oI the plastic strain ratio at the Ilange Iracture zone are plotted in Figure 8. In
this graph, the growing process under SAC-Near-Iault loading protocol shows totally diIIerent route
Irom that under the other loading protocols. The growing processes under the rest oI the loading
protocols are similar to each other. Especially Ior loading protocols SAC 2000 and FEMA 461, almost
same growing processes can be seen Irom the graph.
Figure 8. Growing processes oI the plastic strain ratio under recommended loading protocols
4. SUGGESTION ON SELECTING LOADING PROTOCOLS IN BEAM TESTING
4.1 Investigation of the Recommended Loading Protocols
In the tests to evaluate the beam`s seismic perIormance, especially plastic deIormation capacity under
seismic eIIects, a loading protocol is suitable or not lies on its reproduction oI the beam`s behavior
under (as various as possible) real earthquake ground motions. The seismic behavior oI the beam
Ilange under 11 ground motions was obtained in Section 2. The growing processes oI the plastic strain
ratio at the beam Ilange Iracture zone show distinguished routes in Figure 6. The plastic strain ratio
growing processes under 11 ground motions cover a certain area. From Figure 6, the envelope oI the
area at BSF is obtained. The area covered by the envelope represents the beam`s behavior under
diIIerent types oI ground motions. In order to investigate the practicality oI the recommended loading
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
P
Jap
FEMA461
SAC
SAC-Near Iault
ATC-24
Fracture condition
JISF
protocols, the growing processes oI the plastic strain ratio under these recommended loading protocols
(Figure 8) are plotted into the envelope (Figure 9).
The results oI the JISF, FEMA461, SAC2000, AISC2005, and ATC-24 loading protocols gather in the
middle part oI the envelope. The result oI the SAC-Near-Iault loading protocol reaches out to the
bottom edge oI the envelope. Taking a broad view oI the whole graph, there are two obvious parts in
the envelope that cannot be cover by the results oI the recommended loading protocols, pointed out in
the dark blue cycles. The one at the top is where the long-duration ground motions such as Iwaki
record lays. The Ieature oI the beam responses in this area is large number cycles oI relatively smaller
deIormation amplitude. The other inadequate part between the SAC-Near-Iault protocol and the rest oI
the loading protocols is the area that the ground motions with the characteristic oI large amplitude
beam responses lay. The inadequate parts in the envelope should be taken into consideration in
choosing the reasonable loading protocols.
Figure 9. Comparison oI the 'envelop and the beam behavior under recommended loading protocols
4.2 Complementary Loading Protocols
To cover the inadequate parts in Figure 9, beam`s perIormance under three loading protocols shown in
Figure 10 was also evaluated. The details oI these three loading protocols are as Iollows:
1. Constant amplitude loading oI 3
P
u
2. Constant amplitude loading oI 4
P
u
3. Modi-JISF loading protocol: incremental cyclic loading starting Irom 2
P
u , with intervals oI 2
P
u
Figure 10. Complementary loading protocols
The growing processes oI the plastic strain ratio at the Ilange Iracture zone under the complementary
loading protocol are plotted in Figure 11 together with the results oI the recommended Japanese and
American loading protocols and the envelope under BSF. This graph indicates that beam perIormance
under constant amplitude loading protocols oI 3
P
u reproduces the beam perIormance under long
duration ground motion. The ModiIied JISF protocol Iills the blank between the Near-Iault earthquake
and other recommended loading protocols.
Figure 12 shows the deIorm perIormance oI the beam component under all loading protocols till
Iracture. The SAC, FEMA 461, and JISF loading protocols show very similar results, which can
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fracture
Jap
FEMA461
SAC
SAC-Near Iault
ATC-24
q qq q
^
q qq q
q q q q
d
q q q q
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
q qq q
^
q qq q
q q q q
d
q q q q
^& ^&
JISF
4 up
8 up
0
2 up
6 up
4 up
8 up
2 up
6 up
Consfnnf 3u
4 up
8 up
0
2 up
6 up
4 up
8 up
2 up
6 up
Consfnnf 4u
4 up
8 up
0
2 up
6 up
4 up
8 up
2 up
6 up
ModIJISI
reproduce the beam`s perIormance under generic earthquakes. When the amplitude oI the loading
protocol decreases, the growing processes lean to the upper-leIt side. The loading protocols in this area
reproduce the beam`s perIormance under long duration ground motions. On the other side, when the
amplitude increases, the growing processes lean to the lower-right corner, which is the domain oI
near-Iault ground motions.
Figure 11. Comparison oI the 'envelop and the beam behavior under all loading protocols
Figure 12. Equivalent cumulative deIormation ratio oI beams under recommended loading protocols
Based on the above discussion, suggestions are given as Iollows to the selection oI loading protocols
in beam tests:
Single specimen testing program
One loading protocol Irom the SAC 2000/ASIC, FEMA 461, or JISF loading protocols.
*For the beams possibly suIIering brittle Iracture, SAC 2000/ASIC loading protocol is recommended.
Multiple specimens testing program
Testing program with at least three specimens is recommended.
1) One loading protocol Irom the SAC 2000/ASIC, FEMA 461, or JISF loading protocol.
*For the beams possibly suIIering brittle Iracture, SAC 2000/ASIC loading protocol is recommended.
2) One constant amplitude loading protocol with small loading amplitude, Ior example: 3
P
u .
3) Either the monotonic loading protocol or the SAC-Near-Iault loading protocol.
*When there is a limitation oI the Iacility, constant amplitude loading protocol with the largest loading
amplitude oI the Iacility is recommended.
4. CONCLUSION
This study Iocuses on the investigation oI loading protocols employed in beam testing. Beam seismic
perIormance in a weak-beam moment Irame under various earthquakes is obtained through response
Modi-Jap
3 p
4 p
Fracture
Jap
FEMA461
SAC
SAC-Near Iault
ATC-24
^&
q qq q
^
q qq q
q q q q
d
q q q q
^&
q qq q
^
q qq q
q q q q
d
q q q q
:/^&
Modi-JISF
^& ^&
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
d
q
s
q
/q
0
3u
p
ATC-24
SAC FEMA 461
Jap
SAC-NF
4u
p
Modi-Jap
Long duration
ground motion
Generic ground
motion
Near-fault ground
motion
JISF
JISF
analysis and in-plane beam analysis. By comparing the beams perIormance under the recommended
Japanese and American loading protocols and that under ground motions, Suggestions were given on
the selection oI loading protocols in beam tests Ior the purpose oI evaluating the seismic perIormance
oI the beam.
REFERENCES
Building Research InstituteyJapan Iron and Steel Federation.(2002), Testing methods oI the evaluation oI
structural perIormance Ior the steel structures.
American Institute oI Steel Construction. (2005), Seismic Provisions Ior Structural Steel Buildings (Including
Supplement No.1)
Yamada S. and Akiyama H..(1996) Inelastic Response Analysis oI Multi-Story Steel Frames Based on the
Realistic Behaviors oI Members. Proc. of ICASS96, 159-164
Yamada S. and Akiyama H. (1994) Inelastic response analysis oI multi-story steel Irames based on the realistic
behaviors oI members governed by local buckling (In Japanese). Journal of Structural and Construction
Engineering, Transactions of AIJ; No 463: 125-33.
Yamada S., Jiao Y., and Kishiki S. (2011) Plastic deIormation capacity oI steel beam determined by ductile
Iracture under various loading histories (In Japanese). Journal of Constructional Steel, Vol. 19, 239-246
Gihoudo (2009). Structural design oI steel structures (4th Edition), Japan Society oI Steel Construction
Akiyama H., and Takahashi M. (1990), InIluence oI Bauschinger eIIect on seismic resistance oI steel structures.
Journal of structural and construction engineering, Transactions of the AIJ; No 418: 49-57.
Akiyama H. (1983), P- A eIIect on energy absorption capacity oI steel Iramed structures subjected to
earthquakes. Journal of structural and construction engineering, Transactions of the AIJ; No 340: 11-7.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2007). Interim testing protocols Ior determining seismic perIormance
characteristics oI structural and nonstructural components. FEMA 461 DraIt Document, Redwood City,
CA: Applied Technology Council;
American Institute oI Steel Construction. (2005) Seismic provisions Ior structural steel buildings (Including
Supplement No.1);
Krawinkler H., Gupta A., Medina R., and Luco N. (2000) Loading histories Ior seismic perIormance testing oI
SMRF components and assemblies, SAC Joint Jenture, Report No. SAC/BD-00/10;
YousseI N, Bonowitz D, Gross JL. (1995) A survey oI steel moment-resisting Irame buildings aIIected by the
1994 Northridge earthquake. NISTIR 5625, National Institute oI Standards and Technology;
Krawinkler H. (1992). Guidelines Ior cyclic seismic testing oI components oI steel structures. Report No.
ATC-24, Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council