Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 32

Jefferson to H.

Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816

Appropriate Loading Protocol
for Capacity Determination of
Metallic Bracing Components
SB 211
a) The office shall adopt by regulations seismic safety standards for hospital equipment
anchorages, as defined by the office, to include, but not be limited to, architectural,
mechanical, and electrical components, supports, and attachments. Those
regulations shall include criteria for the testing of equipment anchorages.
b) Any fixed hospital equipment anchorages purchased or acquired on or after either the
effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not be used
or installed in any hospital building unless the equipment anchorages are approved by
the office.
c) Manufacturers, designers, or suppliers of equipment anchorages may submit data
sufficient for the office to evaluate equipment anchorages’ seismic safety prior to the
selection of equipment anchorages for any specific hospital building.
d) The office may charge a fee based on the actual costs incurred by it for data review,
approvals, and field inspections pursuant to this section.
(Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 429, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2008.)
ASCE 7 -Chapter 13
ASCE 7, Chapter 13
Chapter 13
CBC Chapter 17A
• 1705A.13.2 Nonstructural Components. For structures assigned to Seismic
Design Category D, E or F, where requirements of Section 13.2.1 of ASCE 7
for non-structural components, supports, or attachments are met by
manufacturer’s certification as specified in Item 2 therein, the registered
design professional shall specify on the approved construction documents
the requirements for seismic certification by analysis or testing. Certificates
of compliance for the manufacturer’s certification shall be submitted to the
building official as specified in Section 1704A.5.
• Seismic sway braces satisfying requirements of FM 1950 shall be deemed to
satisfy the requirements of this Section. Component tests shall be
supplemented by assembly tests, when required by the building official.
Loading Protocol Component Test – FM 1950
FM 1950 Test Arrangement for Assembly Testing
Loading Protocol Component Test – FM 1950
• Pipe bracing components with expected ratings > 1000 lbs, initial
loading = 1000 lbs.
• Expected ratings less than 1000 lbs, initial loading = 250 lbs.
• First 15 cycles at initial loading.
What is a Quasi-static Loading Protocol?
• “Quasi-static” implies:
• Load or deformation cycles
are imposed on a test
specimen in a slow,
controlled, stepwise
increasing symmetric fully
reversed cyclic loading
pattern and predetermined
• Dynamic effects as well as
rate of deformation effects
are not considered
Acceptance Criteria – FM 1950
• Three tests to be performed.
• Failure occurs when there is a break or deformation limits are
• Load rating from lowest magnitude of force reading from three
• Previous complete cycle gives load rating for LRFD.
• ASD values are derived by dividing the load rating, or LRFD values by
1.5 (2010).
Loading History Effects Identical Steel Beams
Loading History Effects Identical Plywood Shear Wall
Why Bother with Loading Protocols
Objectives of Testing
• Evaluation of behavior
• Study of damage and failure modes
• Development of design/detailing criteria
• Analytical modeling

• Single test should represent many different conditions existing
in a structure
• The demands imposed by ground motions on the structure
depend strongly on structural characteristics
• The imposed demands are a function of ground motion
characteristics, which depend strongly on soil type, source-to
site distance, and many other geophysical parameters
• Various performance levels of interest, from immediate
occupancy to collapse
• Loading history never is “right”
ASCE 41-13 Sec 7.6:
Alternative Modeling Parameters
and Acceptance Criteria

July 18, 2014

Loading Protocols for ASCE 41 Backbone Curves
Bruce F. Maison, M.EERI, and Matthew S. Speicher, M.EERI
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 32, No. 4, November 2016
• [ASCE 41] Sec 7.6 deals with lab tests
– To generate backbone curves and acceptance criteria
– Emphasis on “fully-reversed cyclic tests”

• Industry trend includes “monotonic tests”

– FEMA P-440A study on effects of strength and
stiffness degradation
– FEMA P-695 for determining building system
performance parameters
– PEER “Tall Buildings Initiative” has the preferred
option of using the monotonic backbone curve w/
What’s Wrong w/ Cyclic Tests..?
• Resulting backbone curve is dependent on loading
• Backbones can be arbitrary (FEMA 440A)



Why Is This Important..?

• Backbones curves set:

– Modeling parameters (m-factors)
– Acceptance criteria

• Arbitrary backbones are not good

• Backbones should be realistic

– To produce meaningful results
What is a Loading Protocol..?
Effect of Protocol

• One-sided response at “large” drifts

• Few “large” excursions

– Mostly < 3 “large” drift excursions

• More like “monotonic” as opposed to

“numerous fully-reversed cycles”
What Needs to Change..?
• Emphasize protocol should mimic
expected EQ loading pattern
– Typically few one-sided cycles at “large” drifts

• Indicate usefulness of monotonic in

addition to cyclic tests

• Eliminate “fully-reversed cyclic” loading


• Change [ASCE 41] Figure 7-5

– Shows unrealistic numerous fully-reversed cyclic
ASCE 41-13 Figure 7-5

• Sharp load drop-off is due to protocol

Next Steps

• Ad hoc working group to formulate change


• White paper explaining rationale for changes

• Present to ASCE 41 Committee

FEMA 461 Cyclic Loading Protocol
FM 1951 Cyclic Loading Protocol



Load (%Fmax)





Displacement (in)
FEMA 461 Cyclic Loading Protocol



Load (%Fmax)





Displacement (in)
FM 1950 Cyclic Loading Protocol
FEMA 461

Absorbed Energy



FM 1950


0 10 20 30 40
Cycle No.
Current Work Under Development
• Which protocol is the most appropriate for estimating capacity of
metallic Components?
• Monotonic with a Factor of Safety of …. For ASD
• Cyclic FM 1950 with a factor of Safety of …. For ASD
• Cyclic FEMA 461 with a factor of Safety of …. For ASD
• Monotonic for some, Cyclic for others
• Other