Material modelling in the seismic response analysis for the design of RCframed structures
, 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
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.
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