Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ATCm
~
I
I
!
I
i
I
,I
!
;
aTC
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
Funded by
American Iron and Steel Institute
American Institute of Steel Construction
National Center lor Earthquake Engineering Research
National Science Foundation
_-
..
._~-_._
..1
ATC-24
I '
i
!
I
i
Funded by
AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSnTUiE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUcnON
NATIONAL CEN1'ER FOR EARTIlQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH
"(project 88-6604)
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'
(GranE No. BCS-8912602)
I
!
I
II
II
II
I
!I
II
PRINOPAL INVESTIGATOR
OuisropherRojahn
PUBLICAnONS CONSULTANT
ROD Consultants. Inc.
.....
j
I
Ii
I!
I!
I'
I
I
EgorP.Popov
Allan R. Porush
Nigel M. J. Priestley
Edwin G. zacher
ATC Board Representative
1992
I,'
I
~ ;
; :
I
., .
This repon was prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATe) with funding provided
by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AlSl), !he American Institute for Steel Construction
(A1SC). the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER). and the
Nalional Science Foundation (NSf). Neither AlSI, AlSC. NCEER. NSF. ATC nor any
person acting on their behalf:
1. makes any wamnty, express or implied, wi!h respect ro Ihe use of any information.
8ppara1US, method, or process disclosed in
assumes any liabilities of whatsoever kind with respecllO the use of, or for damages
resulting from the use of, any information, apparaws, method, or process disclosed in
Ibis report.
'I'
..'
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
Disclaimers
"':....
I
I
I
I
!;
Preface
I:
II
I,t.
I'
I,
I
I:
'j.
I
I:
I'
i:
.'.:" .
.....
ATC-24
','
I
Preface
-.
I:
"
...
I
I,
.I
I,
i
I
I
I
'.
III
Notation
I
I
I
+,-
(AOr)i+
Jl
Pe;+
..
A+
C,C
D
i
i+
(
Ke
Ki+
Ko.i+
m
nj
N
NI
Q
Q;+
Q~.;+
Qmin
Qy
0
0;+
o,i+
"';';"~.
c;
.,c~
.1
.10,+
(.10p"Ji+
A'fC.24
I
I
I!
!
j
!
I
I
i
II
I
I
,+
Notation
I
I
I
I
i
j
I
i
I
-, ij
0-
.,
"
":'
;.:
...
-~
.', .
~.
Table of Contents
Preface
iii
Notation
Part I: Recommendations
1.
IntrOOucdon ........................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1
Experimentation in Eanhquake Engineering
3
1.2
Purpose and Scope o(Document
3
2.
'I>efinitions
3.
General Considerations
3.1
Purpose of Experiments
3.2
Test Specimens
3.2.1 Types of Test Specimens
3.2.2 Boundary and Initial Conditions
3.2.3 Specimen Fabric~tion
3.3
Material Testing
3.4 . Planning and Execution of Experiment
3.5
Test Control and Control Parameters
5.
I
7
:....................................~ ...... 7
7
7
7
7
7
11
II
13
13
13
5.
15
6.
Evaluation of Perfonnance
17
Part U: Commentary
19
C.I
Introduction (Commentary)
21
C~
C:3
Test Specimens
I
I
C.3.2
4.
.''.
i
1
:....~. 2S
2S
_
_2S
2S
:
26
26
26
27
27
29
33
35
I,
I:
I
I
I
I
ATC24
Table of Contents
vii
_ 35
..:::::::::::::35
C.S
37
C.6
41
41
43
References
ATC-24 Project Participants.._
I
I
4S
47
Table of Contents
49
ATC24
..
_----_
......
List of Figures
I
, I-,
Figure I
Parameters of cycle i
Figu.re2
Figure 3
11
FIgure C.I
30
FigureC.2
Dependence of mean number ofinelastic excursions on natural period and ductility ratio .. 32
FigureC.3
.._.._ 9
I
I
i
~~..__.._..__ ~
FigureC.4
FigureC.S
39
FIgUreC.6
41
J
!
,i
I,
I,
I
,,I
"",":-
II
'"
....
"
I
A1C-24
','
List of Figures
.....
it
.~
.. ".
List of Tables
I
I
Table c.t
34
Table C.2
38
I
I
Ii
I
-j
!
'-1 .
j
I
A1C-24
,"
List of Tables
Part I: Recommendations
A'l'C-24
---- _._._-_.-
'I'I
'
..
Part I: Recommendations
"
"
Introduction
Adequate protection of structures from the effects
of eanhquakes requires detailed knowledge of
strength and deformation characteristics of the
elements and element assemblies making up the
suuctural system that provides resistance to
seismic effects. Available analytical methods
based on principles of mechanics are often
inadequate to provide reliable information on these
cbarae:teristics~ primarily because of the random
n.atun: of the cyclic deformation demands imposed
on elements and the dependence of the response
charae:teristics.on the deformation history to which
an element is subjected. For this reason
experiments with physiCal specimens. which
reproduce the field conditions as realistically as
feasible, are needed to provide fundamental
information that can be used to develop. augment.
or confirm analytical models that will form the
basis for seismic protection procedures.
1.1
Experimentation in Earthquake
EngiJ::leering
ATC-24
:1 t
1. Introduction
. ~..
",
'~""
......
,.
','
I. Introduction
ATC24
I
I
Definitions
Cycle: A load or defonnation history unit
consisting of two sequential excursions, one in the
positive and one in the negative loading direction.
A cycle is not necessarily a closed unit. since the
total deformation ranges of the two excursions may
Dot be equal.
Deformation: A generic quantity. 6, including
strains, angles of shear distortion, rotations. axial
defonnations. and displacements.
Deformation r3Jlge of excursion: The
defomation range between the beginning and the
peak defonnation of an excursion..
Ductility ratio: The ratio of peak deformation
over yield defonnation.
"'-.:""
, . ~.
ATC-24
1"
2. DefJnltions
---------+1
I
i+
~-....;,.-
Excursion i"
--t---:-r-::7;"'-'-T~-----+-----"':'-_---+-----I.... 8
0,+
Excursion
i"
I
j
I
I
I
-+---
j"
(6opm)," - - - - - - - -.......
......- - - - - - - - - - 60.-
--IIlIof
(60 1),"
.i
.....
, .....
Figure 1
I
Parameters of cycle ;
I
;
!
,I
2. Definitions
. I
i .
!
I
II
-af]-------General ConsideratiQ_:Q~
.;;).
Test Specimens
the structure. In particular, appropriate out-ofplane bracing needs to be provided in twodimensional specimens. It is desirable to establish
boundary conditions such that me "force" control
parameter (see Section 3.5) and other relevant
force quantities can be determined directly from
measurements of the applied loads.
Gravity loads should be simulated whenever their
effect on specimen perfonnance is judged to be
impon:mt These loads sbould be simulated in a
manner in which they have me most detrimental
effect on seismic perfonnance.
.J
Material Testing
.1
ATC-24
3. General Considerations
Testing Program and Loading History. These issues arc discussed in Chapter 4.
, '.
"
I
!
I
I
3. General Considerations
ATC-24
. . . ., . -.--I
\
0.75 Q y
-f----J
Measure: deformation o
at a .. O.750 y
Define:
0y .. 1.330'
Ke .. Oy I Oy
','
'
........
s sy
Determination of yield values Oyand 6y and elastic stiffness Ke
Figure 2
3. General Considerations
ATC-24
. I
I
I
II
I
I
I,
I
!
".~:
.........
r,
,~.,~
"
.,
I,-------~~_---------;
. . .4
1I __
a
J
Os
-fi
e
a
"Q,J
0"
"-
I'lS
0)
or::
02
r::
c:l
"i
)1\
.6.,
Q,J
.6.' I'
',II
.6.)1'
',t.
)j\
.6.,,,
0, = Oy
.g
~AAAAAJ
vvv~~V
Q,J
Number of
, C des
",
Deformation history for multiple step test
figure 3
I
I.
ATC24
. I
11
I
1
"j
...
, ......
12
..
4.2
. '-
'.,':
..
~.~
.~,
ATC24
13
,I
a.
~+,
4-
Peale "defonnation,"
A schematics of me
"deformation" control history
with sequential cycle numbers
indicated at the positive peaks
A trace of the force-defonnation
history that shows all important
aspects of the response, including
the point at which first yielding
of me material or first deviation
from a linear relationship was
detected
.~ '."':,'
;"'-
ATC-24
cSO,l-
15
: ',I
.,
'.
,.,.....
Evaluation of Performance
Experiments that foUow these guidelines may be
used to evaluate seismic performance of
components as pans of SUUctures. Adequate
performance implies that a component fulfills a set
of specified performance requirements. These
requirements may be based on strength and
stiffness characteristics. defomation capacity.
energy dissipation capacity, or any combination
thmof. For a component this implies lhat its role
:Within a StnlCIUJ'e needs to be identified and its
capacities (strength, defonnation. and energy
dissipation capacities) as wen as tile donands
imposed by earthquakes deed to be quantified.
Thus, seismic ~put as wen as structural response
have to be quantified with due consideration given
to uncertainties in demands and capacities.
:.
, '.
I
ATC24
6.
Ev~uationofPerlonnance
17
i
\
I
_____________- : - - - - - - - ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i
-I
." i
I
I
I
I
I
"'"
'''<..
I
i
I!
I
I
I
II
I
,,
.1
~-~---------1
,"-,
Part U: Commentary
19
I
I
I
!
Introduction (qommentary)
C-.l
.....
" '.c;; ~
"-
,'.,
..
~ : f
ATC24
.1
C.l
tntrodUeti~(co.:nmentary)
21
II
Definitions (Co~entary)
Sip Convention. Throughout this document it is
presumed that all force and deformation quantities
are documented with their appropriate sign. This
includes yield forces and yield deformations,
which may hav~ different values in the positive
and negative direction. Deformation ranges,
which arc differences in deformations. are always
OODSidered to be positive.
I
I
:'
. '.
\,
A'fC..24
"
C.2 Def1nitions!ccommenta:ry)
!
.'
23
I
!
i
~.
I
I
\
\
I
.1
00
~~.
.. .....
'0
,..
I
ATC-24
25
performance assessment.
26
,
f.
~
$
~
. asic
low-cycle fan,.gue, d,ata,.for all u,r mate,rial
nes can be obtained from standard constantfO,
ATC-24
ATC24
C.3 General
Consid~ations(Commentary)
21
!I ;
I
I
~S:~e~~
~l
i
'"
.1
ATC-24
.- '.- '.
~-_."
.,
Seismic Capacity. Basic seismic capacity parameters for a component are strength, stiffness,
inelastic defonnation or ductility capacity, and
cumulatiye capacity parameters such as energy
dissipation capacity. All these parameters are
expected to deteriorate as Ihe number of damaging
cycles and the amplitude of cycling increases. The
type of deterioration depends on the failure mode
of the component. Figure C.I illustrates examples
of deterioration for two distinctly different failure
h:
'
29
,I
~",
; II
I
I
1
I
I
',.
1.00
0.00 ,
TIP
DEFLEC~ON
1.00
'.
2.00
. (in.)
r-----.:.-------r--i---,;-...;.-.-----_
12.00
8.00
II
I
..... ,4.00
"
'~
o
"
"
Q.
'"
1=
0.00
t-------II------f--i-----I,/:-.:.;:..---J
II
-4.00
-8.00
j
I
12.00
-16.00
II
,I
'-------1-,..-.-----'-1-----+--,..---'
....00
2.00
o.~
-2.00
4.00
(b) RapidO~terioration
Figure C.l
30
~Commentary)
if
i
I
I
!
I
I
--r----------r--~--_ _- - - I
Lio;
ATC24
1
This table shows that for all periods and all ductility ratios the experimentally executed E.dOpiJ
Ov is greater than the predicted mean + a. whereas
tile experimentally executed number of inelastic
excursions in lhe period range from 0.2 to 0.5
seconds is smaller than the predicted mean. The
reason for this disparity is that in earlhquakes shalt
. pet:iod structures experience alarge number of
i small inelastic excursions and a small number of
: large inelastic excursions, whereas in the
! recommended loading history the magnitudes of
i inelastic excursions are distributed more
! unifonnly. The argument for replacing the many
I small excursions of an earthquake by a few larger
I excursions in an experiment is that the total
! number of cycles that have to be perfonned in an
: experiment is reduced, but the cumulative damage
: effect, represented by .L::16piJ 0,. is still simulated
; conservatively. It is left to the judgment of the
l experimentalist to ma<tify the loading history and
~ simulate the expected number of inelastic
: excursions more accurately. It should be
i considered that the predicted values are from West
! Coast eanhquakes with magnitudes between S.7
I and 7.7 and for stiff site soil conditions. For larger
i eanhquakes with longer strong motion duration
i and soft soil sites the number of inelastic
excursions as well as the cumulative plastic
deformation ranges may be considerably larger.
On the other hand, for smaller magnitude
. eanhqualces in regions of lower seismicity the
i opposite may be we. Thus, modifications to tl.'e
~ recommended loading history may be in order If
; much larger or smaller seismic demands are
anticipated.
---- i
33
I
I
I
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0;
1.5
-.
41-
2.5
3.0
3.5
T("')
4.0
Dependence of mean number of inelastic ~xcursions on natural period and duCtility ratio
(Nassar and Krawinkler, 19911
:
,
Figure C.2
80
70
w GO
::c
/I
Z50
'"
\.
i.o.
"'- ............,.-
'f....- '-
10
'0
-- -
"-
f\v... ~
<G
~20
........
r.W
;;'40
....
/L
30
lOG.
----
1.5
T '1I8C)
D,e,penden,ce of the mean of the sum of n rmalized plastic deformation ranges (Ed8p~; on
natural period and duaility ratio (Nassar .ndKrawinkler, 1991)
FigureC.3
"";0.
I'
- .. '.'
.. ~ .....
'.,','
"'.:
components.
I
if
A1C-24
,I
31
Table C.l
Period Ductility
mean
p.
2
4
0.2
12
28
36
6
8
39
2
4
6
0.5
8
2
2.0
..
..
19
24
26
4
7
mean+C1
19
42
experimept
mean
6
16
24
32
4
28
54
78
I'
5S
59
12
30
36
64
64
97
4
20
24
'9
14
, '''.
23
41
32
6
16
.. 24'
13
25
~ ~6
32
38
52
.
.
history is founded on the story drift concept and
that i1 should correspond to a unit increase in story
drift ductility. i.e~. Ll should correspond to an
increase in story drift equal to the yield
displacement of the story.
"""
16
35
10
mean+a
7
41
76
109
5
38
7
10
...2
57
127
229
11
57
127
. 229
---------------........--------------------Atyielding:
6,,= 6,,;,
Subassembly:
Joint panel zone:
r =1jr
~Q;';',y = 0.336".,
Assume:
-,
L\ = 6".,
3(n-0.67)]
.d = 31,
r=
Figure C.4
'. . .
34
.1
ATC-24
__.
ATC-24
I.
I
NI
i
= C-1(.1Sp )-C
(C.1)
35
I
I
ex~rimenlally.
10g~10g plot
is linear.
D=CL(46pit
(C.2)
i.1
I'~.
;.
connec~ons
I
I
I
I
,
i
I
!
!
I
J
I
!I
,I
Documentation
.
(C::cimmentOiY)' -of Ex~rimental
/:'..... . .---- Results.
~----
----;-5
'\
I:
II
Ii
I
i
I
I
.~':'.
"
"
ATC24
,I
37
fa
Table C.2 Example Test Results: Tip Load and Deflection Data
~
'-
Speclm.n C3:
Steel cantilever beam specimen, W24X55 Rdlon, A36 steel, span L .. 144.0 In., lullywelded connection
Measured material yield slrengthl: Flange: Fy .. 42.4 ks~ Web: Fy .. 44.9 kli '.
Measured yield values of control parameters: ely .. 38.1 k
liy .. 0.975 In.
f.n
I
e.
i-iell
a-s.
II
~
(1
Ia
&
~
initial Ldg.
Sliffing
ASpmlay
KaI(Qy/Sy}
Oedeclfon
Oeftectlon at
start of Exeuslon
i+. i-
aJSy
oalay
1+
1-
0.500
-0.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.500
-0.500
0.500
-0.500
4+
0.750
-0.750
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.750
-0.750
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
t;OOO
'.000
0.000
0.082
-0.015
0.045
0.015
0.082
0.097
0.060
0.060
O;Q39
0.030
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
-0.015
0.843
-0.760
0.741
-0.651
0.697
ExCUl$lon
4-
7+
7B+
B-
"9+
g10+
,0-
11+
".
Peak
12+
12-
2.000
2.000
19+
13
14+
14-
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
1St
O/Oy
___ .......0
I~
Initial Unldg.
SlIfflng.
Hysteresis
Area
AI(QyBy)
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.750
-0.750
1.000.
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.918
0.918
0.953
-0.953
0..984
-0.984
0.91e
-0.916
0.953
-0.953
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.072
0.072
0.081
0.081
.G.98.4.
1..O.OQ
1.000...
-0.984
1.000
1.000
0.858
1.603
1.501
1.392
1.348
1.301
1.156
1.203
1.256
-1.302
1.313
-1.343
1.156
-1.203
1.256
-1.302
1.313
-1.343
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
. 1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
-0.604
1.641
1.561
1.725
1.627
1.763
2.265
3.202
3.286
3.352
3.390
3.439
1.375
-1.441
1.316
1.359
1.281
-1.281
1.375
-1.441
1.344
4.543
5.569
1.093
.,.t41
0.906
-0.906
>O;Ot5.
15-
3.000
16+
1617+
17
4.000
.4.000
4.000
1.676
2.867
2.702
4.000
2.972
5.674
5.817
18
5.000
2.145
8.967
----------------
0.0802
1.000
1.000 .
1.297
. 1.312
1.000
1.000
0.998
0.997
0.996
1.000
0.998
0.997
0.996
0.995
1.234
1.t90
1.016
1.063
0.995
0.995
0.990
0.906
0.995
0.990
0.781
0.900
-1.359
~I If:
Observations
and
Comments
K/(Oy/Oy)
Qmax/Q
- - ..QJJU _
0.101
0.965
1.792
1.529
1.517
1.459
1.350
_Io..""'......
2.689
3.895
4.002
4.052
3.917
4.081
0.900
5.129
6.096
5.415
5.765
0.821
4.945
0.906
.... ,.......IIIQ.2IITh
............ _
..... bldllg
&,
=0.1175 In.
-E-18
, .....
FigureC,S
A1'C-24
10"'-'":" ....
,: ,
I
39
,f
I
I
!
I
i
I.
I
II
~,
".
.........
r
'.
",
II
i
i
.1
____________- - - l
I
I
.-6
Evaluation of Performance
(Commentary)
__ _--- ------
-- ----------_._-------_ __._-----_
..
..,
---_._----~.,_._'--'_
_.
_.
t----------- (6li,)I+....,..------_-...
1-1-------- (6op)j+ -------11Ioo4
Q
1+
'.
..
I'".
I-
t--------i4----------.,...Figure C.6
--I
"
(Aop)j- --------~
(A&Jj"
-----------t
ATC-24
. I
41
---
Required strength before failure. Qmin. The minimum force at peak defonnation that must be resisted
according to a stipulated perfonnance criterion. 1lLis force may be expressed as aQ The
parameter a is discussed later.
yo
Maximum r~ista~e, Qu. The, peak force that can be resisted by the specimen during the entire
loading history.
ResutDnce Rado, QvQy (or Qmaz.lQ)" if appropriate; e.g., compressivefo.rce in a buckling test)
Ralt ojhar4ening 01' strength deterioration, Qi+IIQj.
I
I
. .
Maximwn deformation, 8max The peak defonnation of Ihe excursion in which the peak force is larger
than Qmi" ror the last Qrne.
Maximum ductility ratio. f.l.mm: = 8ma:JeSy
MtUimwn acursion ductility ralio. Ilc,/ftll% = lio".d8y
Number ofinelastic excursions to failure. Ni' The number of excursions with amplitudes larger than
. 8, the specimen is able to resist before the foree at peak defonnation ralls below Qmi,..
Cumulative measured plastic deformation range. (Li~m)cum= ~1i6pmh. The sum of the measured
plastic defonnation ranges of all excursions ror which Qi> Qmin'
Normalized cumulative measured plastic deformation range, (tl8pm>cunl6y
Cumulative undeteriorated plastic deformation range:, (tlopJcum = ~tleS,)j. The sum of the
undeteriorated plastic defonnation ranges of an excursions for which Qj > Qmi,..
...
.'.
Cumulative hysteretic area, Aellm = .rAj- cWnulative'hysteretic area enclosed by Q~6 diagram of aU
excursions for which Qi > Qmin. This quantity repn;senrs the energy dissipation capacity if
the product of Q times ohas the dimensions of force times length.
Normalized cumulatiye hysteretic area, Aewr/(Qy6';-
Hysteretic area ratio, A/A,..j. Ratio of measuredhysterelic area of an excursion over computed
hysteretic area based on an elastic perfectly plastic model (see Figure C.6).
I
,
I
I
II
I
,1
ATC24
I
I
II
+
i
43
II
I
I
C.6Evaluationof Perl~nnanee(Commentary)
.
Ir~----------:---------------r-----,------------
References
'
','
.'
-',
-,
ATC24
II
I
, I
Referehces
I
45
SMITH-EMERY COMPANY
EMPLOYEE NAME: IJaneth Quintero
EMPLOYEE #
SATURDAY
.~ i~
DATE
JOB NAMElEXPLANATION
JOB#
m
0000:
'~.g
SUNDAY
CI~
CI~
J!!CI
ClCDC
cE-
'60m
Iii~o:
.~ i~
'g>~ m
0000:
j2-o
ClCDc
.5 ~_:c
"g",lll
wOO:
MONDAY
CI~
.~ ~~:
.5 E '6
g>~ m
00 0 0:.
73,952
!!'c;n
ClCDC
~~-~
C"'CD
WOo:
TUESDAY
CI~
C CD
'g-~.~
'g>~ m
0000:
en J!!CI
(I). c:
.5
'6
Iii
"g
'" m
wOO:
246
WEDNESDAY
CI~
.5 ~
C)
. ~~
Sen
",CDc
.5 a~
"g",lll
wOo:
THURSDAY
CI~
CD
.~ ~~
'g> ~lll
00 0 0:
J!!",
",CDC
FRIDAY
CI~
.5 ~_
OJ
J!!CI
ClCDc
Iii '6
J~ 8.~
.5
WOo:
0000:
WOo:
.5
"g",lll
2110/2003
g'-'Cm
8 '6
"g",lll
73.982
TOTAL MILES
(Per Project)
30
74,382
74,410
28
74.410
74,442
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE
DATE
TOTAL MILEAGE (WEEKLYl
MANAGER APPROVAL
DATE
90