MASTER MMS
MECHANICS of MATERIALS &
STRUCTURES
Applied mechanics of materials and structures
UdG  3501MO2062
Academic year 20122013
MODELING OF A PLASTIC HINGE
INDEX
1. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 2
2. GEOMETRY OF THE STRUCTURE, LOADS AND INTERNAL FORCES FROM SEISMIC AND
GRAVITACIONAL LOADS ................................................................................................................................ 5
3. PLASTIC MOMENT AND PLASTIC HINGES ............................................................................................. 7
3.1 Plastic Moment ............................................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Moment‐Curvature & Moment‐Rotation relationships ............................................................... 9
4. INTERNAL FORCES OF A BEAM BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF PLASTIC HINGE FORMATION ....... 12
5. GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF A STEEL PLASTIC HINGE FOR I‐SECTIONS (FEMA‐350) ................................. 14
6. QUESTIONS TO BE SOLVED ................................................................................................................. 16
References .................................................................................................................................................. 17
1. PROBLEMDESCRIPTION
Ground motion produced by earthquakes mean a huge amount of energy that can be transmitted
to the buildings. The amount of energy introduced into a structure depends mainly on its
fundamental period. This energy can be transformed in elastic deformation or dissipated by
viscous damping and plastic deformation. A structure that can dissipate most of the energy input
can be lower sized. The conventional design of buildings from the seventies to now has been
based on seismic forces reduction by means of the yielding of determined parts of the structure.
This design means more economical structures but also possible severe damage spread all over
the building that could suppose the building demolition when the cost of repairing the damage is
too high. Most of new buildings are still based on conventional design. Fortunately some of them
are being designed with reparable or nondamaging special elements to concentrate the energy
dissipation process (known as energy dissipators) or with base isolation systems to reduce most
of the energy input.
Fig. 1 Plastic hinges distribution in a frame based on the “strong column – weak beam” concept.
The Special Moment Frame (SMF) is considered as a conventional seismic design system for
steel structures. A SMF is designed to withstand significant inelastic deformations when
subjected to the forces resulting from the motions of the design earthquakes. This inelastic
deformation has to be located in specially designed plastic hinges in the beam endings, based on
the concept of “strong column – weak beam” (Fig. 1).
To withstand with large plastic deformations, the plastic hinges has to be located in a compact
classified section and it has to be experimentally proved that their geometry and materials
provide such plastic rotations.
Although it is common to visualize inelastic rotations in moment frames occurring at beam or
column “hinges,” analyses and testing demonstrate that the inelastic rotations actually mainly
combine flexural deformations at the hinges and shear deformations of the panel zones (Fig. 2).
In this problem we will design the panel zone to behave elastically, by reinforcing it with
additional welded plates (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2 Beamcolumn steel joint
Fig. 3 Panel reinforcement with additional welded plates
The yielding elements have to sustain a nonlinear hysteretic response that has to be proved with
experimental analysis. As experimental analysis of buildings are very expensive (they need huge
laboratories and dynamic actuators fed with enormous hydraulic pumps and sophisticated servo
controlled systems) experimental models use to be scaled and often they are tested by equivalent
quasistatic loading methods (Fig 4). Frequently a substructure is tested instead of the all frame.
Fig. 5b shows a substructure that was tested to obtain the nonlinear behavior of a slabtocolumn
interior connection (Fig. 5a). It was considered that in the endings of the columns and frames of
the model there was not bending moment, based on responses to lateral forces of frames (Fig. 7b)
The main goal of this problem is obtain the nonlinear response of beamcolumn joint by a
simplified method and by a FEM analysis of a substructure, and compare their results.
Fig. 4 Hysteretic response of a shear panel [5]
Fig. 5 a) 2D steel frame model, b) experimental model of an interior joint, c) lateral imposed
displacement, d) Displacementforce hysteretic response[6]
2. GEOMETRYOFTHESTRUCTURE,LOADSANDINTERNALFORCES
FROMSEISMICANDGRAVITACIONALLOADS
Fig.6 Geometry of the problem’s frame (left) and the load gravity forces (q) and the lateral
earthquake forces (E) obtained from modal spectral analysis
Load Forces: A simplified load case has been considered, taking into account the same live
load for all the floors. Earthquake forces has been obtained from spectral modal analysis,
considering a ductility factor of 4, ground type A, ground acceleration 0.23g
1
st
floor 2
nd
floor 3
rd
floor 4
th
floor 5
th
floor
G (kN/m) 18
Q (kN/m) 12
E (kN) 5.26 10.5 15.6 20.8 25.6
Where: G: permanent gravity loads, Q: live loads, E: earthquake horizontal loads
Combination for persistent or transient design situations:
1.35* G +1.5 Q
Combination for seismic design situation
G +0,3 Q +E
Fig.7 Bending moments of the frame with the gravity loads (left) and the lateral earthquake
equivalent forces (right).
Fig.8 Internal Forces of the frame from the seismic combination
Fig.9 Lateral deformation from the seismic combination: deformation from equivalent forces
(reduction factor of 4 because ductility) and linear elastic analysis (left) and expected
deformations considering the ductility factor uniformly distributed over the all high of the frame
3. PLASTICMOMENTANDPLASTICHINGES
3.1 PlasticMoment
Fig. 10
In simple bending the neutral axis and the sectional moment can be obtained from the static
equilibrium equations:
0 . = =
}
A
dA N o [3.1]
}
÷ =
A
dA z M . . o [3.2]
Where o is the normal strain, A the crosssectional area, z the distance from the neutral axis and
N and M the axial internal force and the bending moment respectability. For an ideally section
where all fibers are plasticized, the before equations become:
} } }
= + ÷ = =
At
y
Ac
y
A
dA f dA f dA N 0 . o
and:
} }
=
At Ac
dA dA
Where A
c
and A
t
are compressed and tensed areas respectably.
Fig. 11
It means that, in this ideally yielded section, the neutral axis is located from the condition that the
compressed and the tensed areas are equal. In symmetrical sections, like double T sections, the
neutral axis and the symmetry axis are the same, but not in the case of nonsymmetrical sections
(Fig. 11). The ideal plastic moment M
pl
can be obtained from equation 3.2:


.

\

÷ + = ÷ =
} } }
Ac At
y y
A
pl
zdA f zdA f dA z M . . o
At y Ac y pl
S f S f M ÷ + = [3.3]
S
Ac
and S
At
are the first moment of the compressed and tensed areas, respectably, referred to the
neutral axis. In the case of symmetrical sections fist moment values are the same so:
S f M
y pl
2 = [3.4]
If the plastic section modulus Z
pl
is defined as:
S Z
pl
2 =
Then the plastic moment can be rewritten as:
pl y pl
Z f M . = [3.5]
3.2 Moment‐Curvature&Moment‐Rotationrelationships
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
The section curvature k can be easily obtained from Euler‐Bernoulli theory of slender beams. The
assumption that plane sections remain plane after flexural deformation supposes (Fig. 14):
z
k
c
µ
÷ = =
1
[3.6]
Fig. 14
For a defined section where the constitutive stressstrain relationship is known (Fig. 15), it is
possible to obtain the curvature – moment relationship. Elastic moment can be obtained:
el y
y
y el
W f
z
I
f M = =
max
Curvature k
el
can be determined from equation 3.6, where the maximum deformation of the
section is the yielding deformation c
y
. From a set of incremental curvatures in the plastic range,
the strain and stress diagram can be determined (Fig.13) taking into account the strainstress
relationship of the steel. Finally the moment correspondent to every curvature can be calculated
by the equation 3.2. Finally the Moment – Curvature curve can be represented (figure 15.a)
As curvature can be defined as:
dx
d
dx
z d u
k ~ ~
2
2
[3.7]
The Moment – Rotation curve (Fig. 15.b) of a plastic joint can be determined by integrating the
curvatures along the length of the plastic hinge:
x kd
H
L
H
}
= u
Fig. 15 Stress – strain relationships: a) realistic, b) bilinear
Fig. 16 a) MomentCurvature relationship, b) MomentRotation relationship
4. INTERNALFORCESOFABEAMBASEDONTHEASSUMPTIONOF
PLASTICHINGEFORMATION
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
5. GEOMETRICDESIGNOFASTEELPLASTICHINGEFORI‐SECTIONS
(FEMA‐350)
Fig. 20 Reduced Beam Section (RBS) connection [2]
6. QUESTIONSTOBESOLVED
a. Determine the geometry of the plastic hinge as defined in figure 20 and taking into
account the steps 1 and 2 of the design procedure in chapter 5.
b. Determine the Mu
H
relationship for the plastic hinge taking into the stressstrain
relationship or a simplified one that you find suitable enough (bilinear, for example):
Strain
(mm/mm)
Stress
(MPa)
0 0
Yielding
point
0,0022 285
0,0407 417
0,0881 488
0,1495 534
Ultimate
point
0,2045 557
Fig. 21
c. Determine the response of the joint by a FEM analysis of next representative
substructure (Fig. 22). Impose a lateral displacement o=1.5 times the interstory drift of
Fig. 8b. Reinforce the panel joint by increasing the panel thickness (if necessary) to
avoid plastic yielding in the panel. Obtain the Moment – Rotation and define the hinge
length and its location on the beam.
Fig. 22 Sketch of a substructure to model the joint behavior
d. Compare the both obtained plastic hinge rotation curves.
References
[1] ANSI/AISC 341‐05; ANSI/AISC 341s1‐05 Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings; American
Institute of Steel Construction, INC., Chicago, 2005
[2] FEMA‐350. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment‐Frame Buildings. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, June 2000
[3] CEN prEN 1998‐1 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. 2004
[4] CEN prEN 1993‐1‐1:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1.1: general rules for buildings,
2005
[5] D.D. Kim, M.D. Engelhardt (2002). “Monotonic and cyclic loading models for panel zones in steel
moment frames” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 58, Issues 5‐8, 605‐63
[6] A. Benavent‐Climent, X. Cahís and A. Catalan (2008) “Seismic behavior of interior connections in
existing waffle‐flat‐plate structures”. Engineering Structures 30, 2510–2516