Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Material Modelling in the Seismic Response Analysis for the Design of Rc Framed Structures

Material Modelling in the Seismic Response Analysis for the Design of Rc Framed Structures

Ratings: (0)|Views: 102|Likes:
Published by Iordache George

More info:

Categories:Topics, Art & Design
Published by: Iordache George on Aug 10, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1014–1023www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Material modelling in the seismic response analysis for the design of RCframed structures
Pankaj Pankaj
, Ermiao Lin
School of Engineering and Electronics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK 
Received 14 June 2004; received in revised form 3 February 2005; accepted 3 February 2005Available online 8 March 2005
Two similar continuum plasticity material models are used to examine the influence of material modelling on the seismic responseof reinforced concrete frame structures. In the first model reinforced concrete is modelled as a homogenised material using an isotropicDrucker–Prager yield criterion. In the second model, also based on the Drucker–Prager criterion, concrete and reinforcement are includedseparately. While the latter considers strain softening in tension the former does not. The seismic input is provided using the Eurocode 8elastic spectrum and five compatible acceleration histories. The results show that the design response from response history analyses (RHAs)is significantly different for the two models. The influence of compression hardening and strength enhancement with strain rate is alsoexamined for the two models. It is found that the effect of these parameters is relatively small. In recent years there has been considerableresearch in nonlinear static analysis (NSA) or pushover procedures for seismic design. The NSA response is frequently compared with thatobtained using RHA, which also uses the same material models, to verify the accuracy of the static procedure. A number of features exhibitedby reinforced concrete during dynamic or cyclic loading cannot be easily included in a static procedure. The design NSA and RHA responsesfor the two material models are compared. The NSA procedures considered are the Displacement Coefficient Method and the CapacitySpectrum Method. A comparison of RHA and NSA procedures shows that there can be a significant difference in local design response eventhough the target deformation values at the control node are close. Moreover, the difference between the mean peak RHA response and thepushover response is not independent of the material model.© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Seismic design; Continuum plasticity; Response history analysis; Pushover methods
1. Introduction
Economic considerations and the seismic design philos-ophy dictate that building structures be able to resist majorearthquakes without collapse but with some structural dam-age. Therefore it is imperative that seismic design is basedon nonlinear analysis of structures. For the nonlinear anal-ysis of reinforced concrete structures a variety of modelshave been considered [1,2]. These include: linear elastic- fracture models; hypoelastic models; continuum plasticitymodels; hysteretic plastic and degrading stiffness models;
Corresponding address: School of Engineering and Electronics, TheUniversity of Edinburgh, Alexander Graham Bell Building, Edinburgh EH93JL, UK. Tel.: +44 131 6505800; fax: +44 131 6506781.
 E-mail address:
Pankaj@ed.ac.uk (P. Pankaj).0141-0296/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.003
and continuum damage models. The most commonly usedmodels for RC frame structures are hysteretic plastic anddegrading stiffness models [e.g. [3,4]]. Numerical simulation of the behaviour of plain andreinforced concrete using continuum plasticity models hasbeen a subject of intense research and the past twodecades have seen the development of a plethora of diverse mathematical models for use with finite elementanalyses [5–9]. Most of these models have been validated and used for static (or slow cyclic) analyses and there islittle evidenceofcontinuumplasticitymodelsfindingaplacein the seismic analysis of framed structures. This paperexamines the influence of two similar continuum plasticitymodels, the Drucker–Prager (DP) model and the ConcreteDamaged Plasticity (CDP) model, on the analytical seismicresponse of a framed structure. While both these models are
P. Pankaj, E. Lin / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1014–1023
1015Fig. 1. The four-storey frame used: (a) dimension; (b) beam cross-section; (c) column cross-section.
essentially based on the Drucker–Prager yield criterion [10], the latter is capable of incorporating complex features suchas strain softening in tension, hardening in compression andstiffness degradation. The influence of material modellingon seismic response was considered earlier briefly by theauthors [11] and in this paper this influence is examined indetail for a simple reinforced concrete plane frame.Nonlinear response history analysis for several possibleground motions, as prescribed by a number of codes,makes seismic design of structures very complicated. Asa result, there has been considerable research to developdisplacement based nonlinear static analysis (NSA) orpushover procedures that can provide seismic design values.NSA response is frequently compared with that obtainedusing response history analysis (RHA), which also uses thesame material models, to verify the accuracy of the staticprocedure. A number of features exhibited by reinforcedconcrete during dynamic or cyclic loading (e.g. progressivedegradation with each cycle of loading, influence of strainrate) cannot be easily included in a static procedure.Therefore it is important to examine whether the differencebetween the design RHA and NSA response is influencedbythe choiceofmaterialmodels.Inotherwords,thehypothesisthat the comparison between a given NSA and RHAprocedure will show similar trends for different materialmodels needs to be tested.Displacement-based NSA procedures exist in severalcodes and guidelines in one form or the other [12–15]. The existing nonlinear static techniques can be broadlydivided into two categories: Displacement CoefficientMethod (DCM) [13,14,16,17] and Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) [15,18–20]. The common feature of  these techniques is that appropriately distributed lateralforces are applied along the height of the building,and then monotonically increased with a displacementcontrol until a certain deformation is reached. Thekey difference between the CSM and DCM proceduresis that the former usually requires formulation in anacceleration–displacement format.Theoretically, for a general nonlinear multiple degreesof freedom system, the peak seismic response (required fordesign) can only be approximated by a static procedure.There has been considerable research directed towardsimproving pushover procedures so they can reflect variousaspects of a nonlinear dynamic analysis. For example,Chopra and Goel [16,17] proposed a modal pushover procedure to include contribution of higher modes. Chopraand Goel [18] provided a method to determine a capacity-demand diagram, in which the displacement demand wasdetermined by analysing inelastic systems in place of equivalent linear systems. The suggested method used theconstant-ductility design spectra and was shown to be animprovement over the ATC-40 [15] procedures. Farfaj andco-workers [19,20] extended the CSM procedure to include cumulative damage and called the method N2. The methodhas been shown to be a significant improvement over CSMand in many studies N2 is referred as a method distinctfrom CSM. This paper examines this difference between thedesign RHA and NSA response for both DCM and CSMprocedures for a simple frame.
2. The test structure and material modelling
The test structure used to evaluate the influence of material modelling was a single-bay, four-storey frame.The reinforced concrete members were modelled usingDrucker–Prager plasticity and concrete damaged plasticity.In each case a number of variations were considered.
2.1. The test structure
The test structure is shown inFig. 1. The total massincluding live load for the frame is 97 000 kg. The columnswere assumed fixed at the base. A damping ratio of 5%was assumed. The finite element modelused two-nodecubicbeam elements. The finite element mesh comprised of fourelements (for two columns)in each storey and four elementsrepresenting beams at each floor level.
P. Pankaj, E. Lin / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1014–1023
2.2. The Drucker–Prager (DP) model
The Drucker–Prager criterion [10] is an approximationof the Mohr–Coulomb criterion. In the principal stress spacethe Mohr–Coulomb criterion is an irregular hexagonal pyra-mid [21]. Points of singularity at the intersections between thesurfacesofthe pyramidcancausecomputationaldifficul-ties, although algorithms exist to overcome these [22]. The Drucker–Prager criterion, on the other hand, is a smooth cir-cular cone in principal stress space. In the DP model con-sidered in this study, reinforced concrete was treated as ahomogenizedcontinuum. The criterion is pressure sensitive,which is an important feature of materials like reinforcedconcrete that have varying yield strengths in tension andcompression. The Drucker–Prager criterion uses the cohe-sion and friction angle as parameters to define yield. Cohe-sion can be determined from compressive, tensile or sheartests. The advantage of using a simple two-parameter modelis that it provides computational transparency. The proper-ties used with the DP model are given inTable 1. The fric-tion angle
is based on the study by Lowes [7].
Table 1Material properties used with the DP modelYoung’s modulus of reinforced concrete,
Poisson’s ratio of reinforced concrete,
0.15Friction angle,
Compressive yield strength,
The model was used with both perfect plasticity andhardening plasticity. For hardening plasticity the hardeningmodulus
, which is similar to some otherstudies [e.g. [23]], was assumed. In this model for perfect plasticity (PP) the yield surface remains unchanged withincreasing plastic strain. For hardening plasticity the yieldsurfaceexpandsisotropically.Nostrainsofteningis assumedfor this model.To examine the influence of strain rate on dynamicresponse the strength amplification results of Bischoff andPerry [24] were used. The authors compiled a range of testsconducted by different investigators and plotted the ratioof dynamic compressive strength to static strength againstlogarithm of the strain rate. They found that there was noclearincreaseinstrengthuptoastrainrateofabout5
.At higher strain rates the strength increases linearly on theabove-mentionedlog-lineargraph.Inthis studythe variationof strain rate was taken as shown inFig. 2. This is similar tothe upper limit suggested by Bischoff and Perry [24].
2.3. The concrete damaged plasticity model
The Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model usedis due to Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen [8]. In thisstudy the concrete damaged plasticity was used to modelconcrete and the reinforcement was modelled separately
Fig. 2. Assumed dynamic strength amplification.
using rebar elements that employed metal plasticity. TheCDP model is applicable for monotonic,cyclic and dynamicloading. The yield criterion is based on the work byLee and Fenves [5] and Lubliner et al. [6]. In biaxial compression, the criterion reduces to the Drucker–Pragercriterion. The material model uses two concepts, isotropicdamaged elasticity in association with isotropic tensile andcompressive plasticity, to represent the inelastic behaviourof concrete. Both tensile cracking and compressive crushingare included in this model. This means the evolution of theyield surface is controlled by both compression and tensionyield parameters.In the elastic regime,the responseis linear.Beyond the failure stress in tension, the formation of micro-cracks is represented macroscopically with a softeningstress–strainresponse,whichinducesstrainlocalisation.Thepost-failure behaviour for direct straining is modelled usingtension stiffening, which also allows for the effects of thereinforcement interaction with concrete. In compression themodel permits strain hardening prior to strain softening.Thus, this material model reflects the key characteristics of concrete well. The interaction of the rebar and concrete,such as bond slip, is modelled through concrete’s tensionstiffening, which can simulate the load transferred acrosscracks through the rebar. The rebar within the concreteelement is defined by the fractional distances along theaxes in the cross section of the element. In this study,only longitudinal reinforcement was included. Bars wereassumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic. To avoid excessivedissimilarity from the DP model discussed, strain softeningin compression and stiffness degradation were not included.The material properties that remain unchangedin this modelare given inTable 2.Incompressioneitherperfectplasticityorhardeningplas-ticity was assumed. For hardening plasticity the hardening

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->