Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Otani S Nonlinear Earthquake Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Otani S Nonlinear Earthquake Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Lecture Notes
August 2002
Shunsuke Otani
Department of Architecture
Graduate School of Engineering
University of Tokyo
Preface
This note is intended to introduce the state of the art in the nonlinear response analysis of reinforced
concrete building structures under earthquake excitation to graduate students. The state of the
knowledge on the behavior of reinforced concrete members and structures and the art of nonlinear
response analysis are far form an established state. Therefore, this note will not provide any unique
solution to a problem.
The note was initially prepared for a special lecture on nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings at Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, from February
to April, 1994. The note has been revised for use in Department of Architecture, University of Tokyo
since 1996; this course was given in English. The note was extensively revised for a series of lectures
on nonlinear earthquake response analysis of reinforced concrete buildings at European School for
Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Italy, from February
to March, 2002.
The use of this note should be limited to personal use.
August 2002
Professor Shunsuke Otani
Department of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering
University of Tokyo
otani@sake.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
http://www.rcs.arch.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/otani/
ii
Contents of Lecture
1. Introduction
2. Properties of Reinforced Concrete Materials
2.1 Concrete
2.2 Reinforcing Steel
2.3 Bond
3. Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Members
3.1 Behavior of Beams
3.2 Behavior of Columns
3.3 Behavior of Interior Beam-column Connections
3.4 Behavior of Exterior Beam-column Connections
3.5 Behavior of Structural Walls
4. Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members
4.1 Flexural Analysis of Section
4.2 Moment-Curvature Relation under Reversed Loading
4.3 Flexural Analysis of Members
4.4 Load-deformation Relation of Beams
4.5 Analysis of Structural Walls
5. Structural Dynamics
5.1 Differential Equation of Motion
5.2 Mass of Inertia
5.3 Damping
5.4 Strain-rate Effect
5.5 Properties of Earthquake Ground Motion
6. Numerical Integration Methods
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Nigam-Jennings Direct Integration Method
6.3 Linear Acceleration Method
6.4 Newmark Beta Method
6.5 Wilsons Theta Method
6.6 Runge-Kutta-Gill Method (Fourth Order)
7. Matrix Analysis of Linearly Elastic Plane Frames
7.1 Assumptions
7.2 Member Stiffness Matrix in Local Coordinates
7.3 Coordinate Transformation
7.4 Member Stiffness Matrix in Global Coordinates
7.5 Continuity of Displacement at Joint
7.6 Equilibrium of Forces at Joint
7.7 Formulation of Structural Stiffness Matrix
7.8 Free Joint Displacements and Support Reactions
7.9 Member End Actions
8. Numerical Solution of Linear Equations
8.1 Incremental Formulation
8.2 Modified Cholesky Matrix Decomposition
8.3 Solution of Linear Algebraic Equations
8.4 Static Condensation
8.5 Damping Matrix
iii
iv
Suggested Reading
American Concrete Institute, Earthquake Resistant Concrete Structures - Inelastic Response and
Design, ACI-SP127, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1991.
Comite Euro-International du Beton, RC Elements under Cyclic Loading - State of the Art Report,
Thomas Telford, 1996, 190 pp.
Comite Euro-International du Beton, RC Frames under Earthquake Loading - State of the Art Report,
Thomas Telford, 1996, 303 pp.
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Dynamic response of a structure can be caused by different loading conditions such as: (a)
earthquake ground motion; (b) wind pressure; (c) wave action; (d) blast; (e) machine vibration; and
(f) traffic movement. Among these, inelastic response is mainly caused by earthquake motions and
accidental blasts. Consequently, more research on nonlinear structural behaviour has been carried
out in relation to earthquake problems.
[m]{
z} + [c]{x} + [k ]{x} = {0}
where [ m] , [c] , [k ] : mass, damping coefficient and stiffness matrices, {z} : absolute acceleration
vector at mass level, {x} and {x} : velocity and displacement vector at mass level relative to the
structural foundation.
Dynamic characteristics up to failure cannot be identified solely through a dynamic test of a real
structure for the following reasons: (a) difficult to understand the behaviour due to complex
interactions of various parameters; (b) expensive to build a structure, as a specimen, for destructive
testing; and (c) capacity of loading devices insufficient to cause failure. Consequently, dynamic tests
of real buildings are rather aimed toward obtaining data (a) to confirm the validity of mathematical
modeling techniques for a linearly elastic structure; and (b) to obtain damping characteristics of
different types of structures. A specifically designed laboratory test becomes inevitable in order to
complement the weakness of full-scale tests and to study the effect of individual parameters.
Damping: Any mechanical system possesses some energy-dissipating mechanisms, for example:
(a) inelastic hysteretic energy dissipation; (b)
radiation of kinetic energy through foundation;
(c) kinetic friction; (d) viscosity in materials; and
(e) aerodynamic effect. Such capacity or energy
dissipation is vaguely termed damping, and is
most often assumed to be of viscous type
simply because of its mathematical simplicity;
i.e., resistance proportional to velocity. It should
be noted that the actual damping mechanism
may not be of viscous type.
Damping capacity is often determined by the
response curve (a plot of response amplitudes
at steady state oscillation with respect to
excitation frequencies) during a sinusoidal
steady-state test. Figure 1 shows such
acceleration response curves for a reinforced
concrete building at different excitation levels
Jennings and Kuroiwa 1968). The frequency
corresponding to peak response indicates the
natural frequency of the structure, and the band
width of the response curve represent the
damping capacity. Note the shift of resonant
frequencies and the change in amplitudes of
damping with increase of excitation level despite
recognize that the shear force of the member was limited by flexural yielding at the critical section
rather than by yielding in shear. This yielding clearly indicates the interaction of shear and bending.
The pinching in the force-deformation curve is obviously less desirable. The shear span to
effective depth ratio is the most significant parameter. Decreasing the shear span to depth ratio
causes a more pronounced pinching in the curve, and a faster degradation of the hysteretic
energy-dissipating capacity. Considerable improvements in delaying and reducing the degrading
effects can be accomplished by using closely spaced ties. Existence of axial force tends to retard the
decrease in stiffness and resistance with cycles. However, it is hard to eliminate this undesirable
effect when high shear stress exists. Consequently, it becomes important to include this degrading
behaviour in a behavioural model for a short, deep reinforced concrete member. The current state of
knowledge is not sufficient to define the stiffness degrading parameters on the basis of the member
geometry and material properties.
Bar Slip and Bond Deterioration: When a structural element is framed into another element, some
deformation is initiated within the other element. Consider a beam-column subassembly. Bertero and
Popov (1977) reported a significant rotation at a beam end caused by the slippage (pullout) of the
beam's main longitudinal reinforcement within the beam-column joint (Fig. 5). The general shape of
the moment-bar slip rotation curve is similar to that shown in Fig. 4, demonstrating a pronounced
pinching of a hysteresis loop. The contribution of bar slip to total deformation cannot be neglected,
especially in a stiff member (short or deep).
A hysteresis model must be able to provide the stiffness and resistance under any displacement
history. At the same time, the basic characteristics need to be defined by the member geometry and
material properties. The current state of knowledge is sufficient to define flexural hysteresis models.
However, it is not sufficient to determine the degree of stiffness degradation due to the deterioration
of shear-resisting and rebar-concrete bond mechanisms.
Bilinear Model: The elastic-perfectly plastic
hysteretic model was used by many investigators
because the model was simple. The maximum
displacement of an elasto-plastic simple system
was found (Veletsos and Newmark 1960) to be
practically the same as that of an elastic system
having the same initial period of vibration as long
as the period was longer than 0.5 s.
A finite positive slope was assigned to the
postyield
stiffness
to
account
for
the
strain-hardening characteristic, and the model was
called a bilinear model. The bilinear model does
not represent the degradation of loading and
unloading stiffnesses with increasing displacement
amplitude reversals (Fig. 6), and the model is not
suited for a refined nonlinear analysis of a
reinforced concrete structure.
Clough 's Degrading Stiffness Model: A qualitative model for the reinforced concrete was
developed by Clough (1966), who incorporated the stiffness degradation in the elasto-plastic model :
the response point during loading moved toward the previous maximum response point. The
unloading slope remained parallel to the initial elastic slope. This small modification improved the
capability to simulate the flexural behaviour of the reinforced concrete. Compared with the
elasto-plastic model, less energy is absorbed per cycle beyond yielding by Clough's degrading
model.
From the response analysis of a series of
single-degree-of-freedom systems, Clough (1966)
concluded that (a) the degrading stiffness model did
not cause any significant change in the ductility
demand of long-period structures (period longer
than 0.6 s) compared with the elasto-plastic model;
on the other hand, (b) the degrading stiffness model
required
significantly
larger
ductility
from
short-period structures than the corresponding
elasto-plastic systems; and (c) the response
waveform of a degrading stiffness model was
distinctly different from that of an ordinary
elasto-plastic model.
The model is relatively simple, and has been
used extensively in nonlinear analysis with the
inclusion of strain-hardening characteristics (Fig. 7).
Takeda's Degrading Stiffness Model: A more refined and sophisticated hysteresis model was
developed by Takeda et al. (l970) on the basis of experimental observation. This model included
stiffness changes at flexural cracking and yielding, and also strain-hardening characteristics. The
unloading stiffness was reduced by an exponential function of the previous maximum deformation.
Takeda et al. also prepared a set of rules for load reversals within the outermost hysteresis loop.
5
Comments
Many other hysteresis models have been proposed and used in the past. Figure 12 shows
attained ductility factors of single-degree-of-freedom systems with any of four flexural hysteresis
models: bilinear; Clough; Takeda; and degrading trilinear models. The four models have the same
backbone curve except the cracking point. The four models show similar variations of attained
ductility factors with periods, but attained ductility factors show a wide scatter from one model to
another, especially in a short-period range.
A reinforced concrete building is normally designed to behave dominantly in flexural mode, brittle
failure modes such as diagonal tension failure in shear being carefully prevented at the design stage.
Thus hysteretic models representing shear behavior were not studied.
FIG. 15. Inelastic rotation of beam: (a) moment; (b) curvature and inelastic rotation.
The stiffness of an inelastic spring is normally defined by assuming an asymmetric moment
distribution along a member with the infection point at midspan. The usage of the initial location of
the inflection point in evaluating spring properties was suggested by Suko and Adams (1971).
However, once yielding is developed at one member end, the moment at the other end must
increase to resist a higher stress, moving the inflection point toward the member centre. At the same
time, a large concentrated rotation starts to occur near the critical section. Despite rational criticisms
against this simple model, the performance of the one-component model is expected to be
reasonably good for a relatively low-rise frame structure, in which the inflection point of a column
locates reasonably close to mid-height.
A special-purpose computer program, SAKE (Otani 1974), for a regular rectangular reinforced
concrete frame structure and recent modifications (Powell 1975) to general-purpose computer
program DRAIN 2D (Kanaan and Powell 1973) used the one-component model.
Multi-component Model: In an effort to analyze frame structures well into the inelastic range under
earthquake excitation, an interesting model was proposed by Clough et al. (1965). A frame member
was divided into two imaginary parallel elements: an elasto-plastic element to represent a yielding
phenomenon, and a fully elastic element to represent strain-hardening behaviour. When the
9
member-end moment reaches the yield level, a plastic hinge is placed at the end of the elasto-plastic
element. A member-end rotation depends on both member-end moments. Aoyama and Sugano
(1968) adapted the two-component model, creating the multicomponent model (Fig.16), using four
parallel beams to account for flexural cracking, different yield levels at two member ends, and
strain-hardening. The deformation compatibility of the imaginary components is satisfied only at their
ends.
connecting points on a tributary basis. Powell (1975) suggested using a degrading stiffness
hysteresis model for rigid inelastic connecting springs (Fig. 17a). Shorter segments were
recommended in a region of high moment, and longer segments in a low-moment region.
An alternative method is to divide a member into short segments, each segment with a uniform
flexural rigidity that varies with a stress history of the segment (Fig. 17b). Local concentration of
inelastic action can be easily handled by arranging shorter segments at the location of high
concentration of inelastic deformation (Takayanagi and Schnobrich 1976).
These methods are useful when more accurate results are required, or in the analysis of walls.
More computational effort is required compared with the other simple models.
FIG. 17. Discrete element model: (a) lumped inelastic stiffness; (b) distributed inelastic stiffness.
Distributed Flexibility Model: Once cracks develop in a member, the stiffness becomes
nonuniform along the member length. Instead of dividing a member into short segments, Takizawa
(1973) developed a model that assumed a prescribed distribution pattern of cross-sectional flexural
flexibility along member length. A parabolic distribution with an elastic flexibility at the infection point
was used (Fig. 18). The flexura1 flexibility at member ends was given by a hysteretic model
dependent on a stress history.
Summary
Various member models are reviewed, and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.
11
These models have been developed specifically for earthquake response. Development of a simple
model for simultaneous gravity and earthquake situations is desired.
Member stiffness matrix, equilibrium of forces and continuity of displacement at joints are used to
formulate a series of linear equations under a given loading condition. Numerical integration
methods are used to solve the equation of motion under dynamic loading conditions. The response
of a structural model is evaluated by solving the set of linear equation incremental time steps.
damping favourably simulated the large-amplitude oscillations at 1.0, 2.0, and 5 s from the beginning
of the motion (Fig. 19). The analytical models, however, failed to simulate the medium- and
low-amplitude oscillations. Note that the frequencies at the medium- to low-amplitude oscillations are
higher for the analytical model, which indicates that the test structure was more flexible at low stress
levels than the analytical model. In order to reproduce lower amplitude oscillations of the observed
response waveforms, the pinching behaviour needs to be incorporated in a hysteretic model.
Three-storey One-bay Frames (II): Another set of three-storey one-bay small-scale reinforced
concrete frame structures was tested on the University of Illinois earthquake simulator (Otani 1976).
The base motion is significantly more intense than a design earthquake motion.
A member was represented by the one-component model with two inelastic rotational springs at
each member end: one for the flexural deformation and the other for the member-end rotation due to
bar slip (Otani 1974). Takeda models with trilinear and bilinear backbone curves were assigned to
the two inelastic springs. Two types of damping were used in the analysis: (a) a damping matrix
proportional to the constant mass matrix; and (b) a damping matrix proportional to an instantaneous
stiffness matrix. The first-mode damping factor was 5% of critical at the initial elastic stage.
Observed and calculated third-level displacement waveforms are compared in Fig. 20 (Otani 1976).
The comparison is fair for large-amplitude oscillations, and poor at low-amplitude oscillations. Again
in this analysis, the pinching characteristic was not incorporated. A fair agreement between the
computed and the observed may be attributable to the fact that the yielding was developed at most
member ends at the large-amplitude oscillations, and that the inflection point tended to be near the
midpoint of each member in such a low-rise frame structure.
FIG. 20. One-component model applied to three-story frame analysis (Otani, 1976):
(a) measured; (b) calculated (mass proportional damping);
(c) calculated (stiffness proportional damping).
Two-storey One-bay Frame: A two-storey one-bay medium-scale frame structure with slabs was
tested on the University of California earthquake simulator (Hidalgo and Clough 1974). The structure
was analyzed using the two-component model. In an effort to improve the correlation, the elastic
stiffness of the two parallel components was degraded as a function of the first-mode-response
13
amplitude history. The observed and the calculated second-floor displacement waveforms are
satisfactorily compared in Fig. 21. However, the parameters controlling stiffness degradation could
not be determined from the theory.
FIG. 21. Two-component model applied to two-story frame analysis (Hidalgo and Clough 1974).
Ten-storey Coupled Shear Walls: Ten-storey coupled shear walls were tested on the University of
Illinois earthquake simulator (Aristizaba1-Ochoa and Sozen 1976). Takayanagi and Schnobrich
(l976) divided a wall into short segments of uniform stiffness, and represented connecting beams by
the one-component model. The Takeda-Takayanagi model with changing axial force was assigned to
a wall element, and the Takeda-Takayanagi model with pinching action and strength decay was used
in a beam. It was judged that the usage of two-dimensional plane stress elements for the walls was
less desirable because such an approach might cost more computational effort without any
compensating increase in accuracy.
Summary
The favorable comparison of the measured and the calculated response waveforms encourages
the use of correct analytical and hysteretic models. It is desirable in developing a mathematical
model that all parameters of the proposed model should be evaluated on the basis of the geometry
of a structure and the properties of materials.
14
1.7 Summary
The behaviour of reinforced concrete buildings, especially under earthquake motion, was briefly
reviewed. When a structure can be idealized as plane structures, the current state-of-the-art
provides useful and reliable analytical methods.
However, more research is required to understand the effect of slabs, gravity loads, and biaxial
ground motion on nonlinear behaviour of a three-dimensional reinforced concrete structure.
References:
Aktan, A. E., D. A. W. Pecknold, and M. A. Sozen, 1973. Effect of two-dimensional earthquake
motion on a reinforced concrete column, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, SRS No. 399.
Aoyama, H., and T. Sugano, l968. A generalized inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete structures
based on the tests of members. Recent researches of structural mechanics. Contribution in
Honor of the 60th Birthday of Professor Y. Tsuboi, Uno-Shoten, Tokyo, pp. 15-30.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., and M. A. Sozen, 1976. Behaviour of ten-storey reinforced concrete walls
subjected to earthquake motion, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, SRS No. 431.
Bertero, V. V., and E. P. Popov, 1977. Seismic behaviour of moment-resisting reinforced concrete
frames. In Reinforced concrete structures in seismic zones, American Concrete Institute, Special
Publication No. 53, pp. 247-292.
Celebi, M., and J. Penzien, l973. Experimental investigation into the seismic behaviour of critical
region of reinforced concret components as influenced by moment and shear, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, EERC 73-4.
15
Clough, R. W., l966. Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements, Structural
and Materials Research, Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
Report 66-16.
Clough, R. W., K. L. Benuska and E. L. Wilson, l965. Inelastic earthquake response of tall buildings,
Proceedings, 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, Vo1. II, Session
II, pp. 68-89.
Cowell, W. L., 1965. Dynamic tests of concrete reinforcing steels, U.S. Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA, Technical Report 394.
Cowell, W. L., 1966. Dynamic properties of plain Portland cement concrete, U.S. Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA, Technical Report 447.
Fukada, Y., 1969. Study on the restoring force characteristics of reinforced concrete buildings (in
Japanese), Proceedings, Kanto District Symposium, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo,
Japan, No. 40.
Giberson, M. F., 1967. The response of nonlinear multi-story structures subjected to earthquake
excitation, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA, EERL Report.
Hidalgo, P., and R. W. Clough, l974. Earthquake simulator study of a reinforced concrete frame,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, EERC 74-13.
Jennings, P. C., and J. H. Kuroiwa, 1968. Vibration and soil-structure interaction tests of a nine-story
reinforced concrete building, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58, pp. 891-916.
Kanaan, A. E., and G. H. Powell, l973. DRAIN-2D, A general purpose computer program for dynamic
analysis of inelastic plane structures, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, EERC 73-6.
Mahin, S. A., and V. V. Bertero, 1972. Rate of loading effect on uncracked and repaired reinforced
concrete members, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
CA, EERC 72-9.
Nigam, N. C., 1967. Inelastic interactions in the dynamic response of structures, Ph.D. thesis,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Otani, S., 1974. SAKE - A computer program for inelastic response of R/C frames to earthquakes,
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, Structural Research Series, No. 413.
Otani, S., 1976. Earthquake tests of shear wall-frame structures to failure, Proceedings, ASCE/EMD
(Engineering Mechanics Division) Specialty Conference, Dynamic Response of Structures,
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, Mar. 1976, pp. 298-307.
Otani, S., V. W. T. Cheung and S. S. Lai, 1979. Behaviour and analytical models of reinforced
concrete columns under biaxial earthquake loads, Proceedings, 3rd Canadian Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Montreal, P.Q., ,pp. 1141-1168.
Otani, S., and M. A. Sozen, 1972. Behaviour of multi-story reinforced concrete frames during
earthquakes. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, Structural Research Series, No. 392.
Pecknold, D. A. W., 1974. Inelastic structural response to 2D ground motion, ASCE Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, 100(EM5), pp. 949-963.
Powell, G. H., l975. Supplement to computer program DRAIN-2D, Supplement to report, DRAIN-2D
user's guide, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Suko, M., and P. F. Adams, 197l. Dynamic analysis of mu1tibay multi-story frames, ASCE Journal of
the Structural Division, 97(ST10), pp. 2519-2533.
Takayanagi, T., and W. C. Schnobrich, 1976. Computed behaviour of reinforced concrete coupled
shear walls, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, Structural Research Series, No. 434.
Takeda, T., M. A. Sozen and N. N. Nielsen, 1970. Reinforced concrete response to simulated
earthquakes, ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 96(ST12), pp. 2557-2573.
Takizawa, H., 1973. Strong motion response analysis of reinforced concrete buildings (in Japanese),
Concrete Journal, Japan National Council on Concrete, II (2), pp. l0-21.
Takizawa, H., and H. Aoyama, 1976. Biaxial effects in modelling earthquake response of R/C
structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 4, pp. 523-552.
Veletsos, A. S., and N. M. Newmark, l960. Effect of inelastic behaviour on the response of simple
systems to earthquake motions, Proceedings, 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Tokyo and Kyoto, Vol. II, pp. 895-912.
Wen, R. K., and J. G. Janssen, 1965. Dynamic analysis of elasto-inelastic frames, Proceedings, 3rd
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand, Jan. 1965, Vol. II. pp.
713-729.
16
Ziegler, H. 1959. A modification of Prager's hardening rule. Quarterly of Applied Mechanics, 17(1), pp.
55-65.
17
2.1 Concrete
Concrete is a hardened material obtained from a carefully proportioned mixture of (a) cement, (b)
sand, (c) gravel and (d) water in forms of the shape and dimensions of the desired structure. The
compressive strength of concrete is determined by static test on either standard cylinders or cubes.
The strength varies with (a) concrete mix, (b) age of testing, (c) curing method, (d) specimen shape
and size, and (e) loading speed. The water-cement ratio is the main factor that controls the strength
of the concrete.
Compressive strength normally used in building construction ranges from 20 to 60 MPa. Higher
strength concrete is used in (a) columns of the lower part of a building to resist higher axial load, (b)
prestressed concrete members to balance the use of higher strength prestressing steel, and (c)
precast concrete for early removal of casting form.
Uniaxial
Stress-Strain
Relation
in
Compression: The stress-strain relationship of
concrete under short-term monotonically
increasing uniaxial compressive loading shows
gradual deterioration in stiffness with strain
even at a low stress level caused by
development of micro cracks. However, the
curve may be represented by a straight line up
to approximately 70 percent of the compressive
strength The secant stiffness at a point at
one-third of the compressive strength is often
used to represent this linear portion. Maximum
resistance is attained at approximately 0.002
strain, followed by descending branch.
The stress-strain relation of concrete
in compression varies with the strength
of concrete. Higher strength concrete
exhibits high initial stiffness and steep
descending slope after attaining the
compressive strength. The strain at
compressive strength does not change
appreciably with the concrete strength.
It should be noted that the damage
does not distribute uniformly over the
height of a specimen; the damage
normally develops in the middle part of
the specimen because the concrete
strength at the specimen ends is
normally enhanced by the confinement.
The lateral expansion by the Poissons
effect is resisted by the friction between the testing machine. The friction provides confining pressure
at the specimen ends, where the strength is enhanced; the damage concentrates in the middle part.
For a given stress level, a larger strain is measured in the middle part, and smaller strain near the
ends. The strain measurement is affected by the choice of gauge length especially in descending part
of the stress-strain curve.
The descending part of the load-deformation relation of a concrete specimen is extremely difficult
to measure because the elastic strain energy stored in the testing machine is released abruptly
during the descending part of the test, causing sudden failure of the testing specimen; a stiff loading
machine is needed for the purpose.
Youngs Modulus: Elastic (Young's) modulus Ec of concrete is normally defined as secant modulus
at approximately one-third of the compressive strength. The value of elastic modulus is often given by
the following empirical formula (Pauw, 1960):
Ec = 1.35 1.5 B
0.5
Ec = 33 w1.5 f 'c
in which
GPa
psi
: unit mass density of air dried concrete (1000 kg/m3), B : compressive strength (MPa)
of concrete, w : air-dry weight of the concrete at testing (pound per cubic feet), and f 'c : concrete
strength at testing (pound per square inches). The unit mass density of concrete may be taken as
2.5 (x1000 kg/m3) for normal weight concrete. A wide scatter of data should be observed from the
Pauw's empirical expression.
(MPa)
in which k1: factor representing type of coarse aggregates, k2: factor representing kind of mineral
admixture, B : observed concrete strength (MPa), : unit density of concrete (ton/m3). The factor k1
is 0.95 for crushed quartzite, crushed andesite, basalt and clayslate aggregates, 1.0 for other coarse
aggregates, and 1.2 for crushed limestone and calcined bauxite aggregates. Factor k2 is 0.95 for
silica fume, fine powder of blast furnace slag and fly ash fume, 1.00 for concrete without mineral
admixture or with other mineral admixture, 1.10 for fly ashes. Ninety-five percent of test data are
shown to fall within 20 percent of the empirical expression. The modulus is important in defining the
elastic period of a structure. Therefore, if the dynamic analysis procedure is used in the design the
modulus should be controlled, especially in a large and important construction project, within an
acceptable range from the value specified by a structural engineer.
Gc =
Ec
2(1 + )
The shear modulus is used to estimate shear modulus of structural walls, where shear deformation
may not be neglected in comparison with flexural deformation.
0.15o
Linear
c = o [2( c ) ( c )2 ]
o o
Ec = tan
o =
2o
Ec
o = 0.002
c
0.0038
c c 2
Concrete Model (Hognestad, 1951)
( ) ]
for c o
o o
c = o [1 Z ( c o )]
for c > o
where c : concrete stress, o : compressive strength of concrete, c : concrete strain, o : strain at
compressive strength of concrete, defined as 2 o / Ec .
c = o [2
Smith and Young (1955) proposed an exponential function for the stress-strain relation ( c c )
of concrete under monotonically increasing load;
= K ( c )m
o
o
where, o : compressive strength obtained from standard cylinders, 0 : strain at the peak stress.
Desayi and Krishnan (1964) proposed an expression;
c =
E c
1+ (
c 2
)
0
Saenz (1964) in his discussion to Desayi and Krishnan (1964) suggested the following expression
for ascending branch of the concrete under monotonic loading;
c = E c [1 (
c =
where
3Eo
2E
2) c + (1 o )( c ) 2 ]
E
0
E 0
E c
1+ (
2) c + ( c ) 2
Eo
0 0
tangent modulus.
Saenz (1964) also suggested an expression including descending branch;
0
), E : initial
o
c =
c
2
3
A + B c + C c + D c
where
A=
1
E
B=
RE + R 2
RE 0
C=
2R 1
RE 0 0
D=
R
RE 0 02
f
0
R
Eo = o
=
2
f
0
0
( R 1)
f , f : stress and strain at failure. The parameters A, B, C , D were selected to satisfy strains and
stresses at the origin (0,0), maximum stress ( 0 , 0 ) and failure point ( f , f ), initial tangent
R=
stiffness
RE ( R f 1)
d
d
1
R
(= E ), slope
=0
RE =
d
d
E
Eo
Rf =
Kent and Park (1971) modified the model by Hognestad (1951), and proposed to vary the
stiffness of descending branch taking into account the confining effect of concrete by lateral
reinforcement;
c c 2
( ) ]
o o
c = o [1 Z ( c o )]
but c 0.2 o
c = o [2
Z=
0.5
50u + 50 h o
50u =
0.021 + 0.002 o
o + 6.89
3
4
50 h = ( ) p s
for c o
for c > o
Unconfined
Confined
0.5 o
50h
0.2 o
b"
sh
c
o = 0.002 50u
50c
20
Attard and Setunge (1996) proposed a stress-strain curve model for concrete applicable for
concrete strength range from 20 to 130 MPa. The main parameters employed to establish the
equation are Youngs modulus Ec , peak stress o , strain at peak stress o , and stress i and
A( c ) + B( c ) 2
c
o
o
=
o 1 + ( A 2)( c ) + ( B + 1)( c )2
o
o
To allow for the difference between the in-situ uniaxial compressive strength and the cylinder strength,
o may be taken as 0.9 times the cylinder strength. For the ascending branch of the
stress-strain curve,
A=
Ec o
( A 1) 2
1
B=
0.55
and for descending branch;
A=
i ( i o )2
o i ( o i )
B=0
Ec = 4370 ( o )0.52
o = 4.11 ( o )0.75 / Ec
i
= 1.41 0.17 ln( o )
o
i
= 2.50 0.30 ln( o )
o
where stresses and Youngs modulus are in MPa.
There have been many research works leading to proposals of mathematical or phenomenological
models for concrete under short-term uniaxial monotonic loading; e.g., Sargin (1971), Popovics
(1970), and Buyukozturk et al. (1971).
Quasi-static
Strain, mm/mm
Behavior under Stress Reversals: Low cycle fatigue tests at the University of Colorado (Sinha,
Gerstle, and Tulin, 1964) on 6x12-in.
(150x300-mm) standard compression
cylinders
led
to
the
following
conclusions;
(a) The stress-strain relationships of
concrete under compressive load
histories possess an envelope curve,
which may be considered unique and
identical with the stress-strain curve
obtained under constantly increasing
strain.
(b) The stress-strain relationships of
concrete subjected to cyclic loading
Stress-strain relationship under stress cycles
possess a locus of common points
which are defined as the point where the
reloading portion of any cycle crosses the unloading portion. Stresses above the common points
produce additional strains, while stresses at or below these points will result in the stress-strain path
going into a loop, repeating the previous cycle
without further permanent strain. It was also
observed that the values of the common points
depended on the minimum stress in the cycle;
i.e., the stress amplitude.
Karsan and Jirsa (1969) reported the
cyclic
compressive
tests
on
3x5-in.
(76x127-mm) prisms with flared ends;
(a) The envelope curve of stress strain
paths under cyclic loading coincided with the
stress-strain curve for a specimen under
monotonic loading to failure.
(b) The Smith-Young expression (Smith
and Young, 1955) was found to be a good
approximation of the envelope curves.
(c) The accumulation of strain under
constant maximum stress levels produced
failure when the envelope curve was reached;
the specimen, however, could be loaded to the
envelope curve regardless of the strain
accumulation prior to a given cycle. The strain
accumulation did not appear to reduce the
strength to a level below the envelope.
(d) The location of the common points
(intersection of unloading and reloading
curves) was dependent on the magnitude of
the maximum stress and strain of the previous
load cycle. The common points for loading
from nonzero levels were identical to the
common points corresponding to load cycles
starting at a stress level of zero.
(e) Examination of the location of the
common points shows that failure would be
produced under repeated loads with stresses
exceeding about 0.63 fc, the maximum of the
stability limit. This limit was independent of the
minimum stress levels in the cycles.
d Ji
1969)
(f) Loading and unloading curves starting from a point within the stress-strain domain were not
unique, and the value of stress and strain at the peak of the previous loading cycle must be known to
estimate the response.
Uniaxial
Hysteresis
Models
for
Concrete: Karsan and Jirsa (1969)
proposed a model for the uniaxial cyclic
behavior of concrete based on 46 short
rectangular column tests under cyclical
loading. The envelope curve could be
defined as the stress-strain curve obtained
under monotonic loading to failure. The
monotonic loading curve may be
approximated by the expression proposed
by Smith and Young (1955);
c
c
(1 )
= 0.85 c e
o
o
where, o : compressive
o
strength
o :
C
)
o
C
)
o
]
C
=
e 0.315+ 0.77
o
0.315 + 0.77
where, = 0.76 for the common point limit curve, and = 0.63 for the stability limit point curve.
[1
= 0.093 ( E )2 + 0.091 ( E )
o
o
o
P
= 0.145 ( E ) 2 + 0.13 ( E )
o
o
o
c =
E c
1+ [
E
2]( c ) + ( c ) 2
Eo
o
o
(0.2 o , 4.0 o ) .
Darwin and Pecknold model of concrete (1974)
Straight unloading stiffness
changes its slope at the turning
point; the initial unloading stiffness from the envelope curve is equal to the initial elastic tangent
stiffness. Straight reloading stiffness is parallel to the lower unloading stiffness and passes through
the common points. The stress levels of common points and turning points are given below;
5
6
1
tp1 = en1
2
cp1 = en1
Region 1:
1
1
6
6
1
1
tp 2 = min{ en 2 , B }
2
2
1
cp 3 = en3 B
6
tp 3 = en 3 2( en 3 cp 3 )
cp 2 = en 2 min{ en 2 , B }
Region 2:
Region 3:
Region 4:
1
= en 3 B
3
2
cp 4 = en 4
3
1
tp = en 4
3
Other models can be found in literatures by Blakely (1973) and Aoyama (1973).
Behavior Under Biaxial Stress Condition: Concrete compressive strength increases with lateral
compressive (confining) stress, but decreases with
lateral tensile stress under bi-directional stress state
(Kupfer, Hilsdorf and H. Rusch, 1969).
The modeling of stress-strain relationship under
biaxial and triaxial loading has been studied
extensively with the development of nonlinear finite
element analysis methods.
Mohrs theory of failure is often used to estimate
the strength under combined normal and shear
stresses on a plane. The envelope of the failure
Mohrs circle is often called failure envelope.
Modeling of Concrete Behavior under Multi-axial
Stresses: A mathematical model to represent
inelastic behavior of concrete under stress reversal
should be able to reproduce the following aspects
(Comite Euro-International du Beton, 1996);
Bi-axial Strength of Concrete
(a) The capacity of accounting for inelastic
(Kupfer Hilsdorf and H Rusch 1969)
non-proportional unloading and reloading,
(b) An adequate non-holonomic relationship between the state of stress and the stiffness of the
material.
(c) The capacity of accounting for the stress degradation as a function of the load history,
including post-peak behavior.
The above features are desired in the mathematical model, but the overall behavior of a reinforced
concrete structure may be insensitive to some aspects of the material behavior. The desirability of a
model is dependent on a type of problem in pursuit.
A large cooperative experimental research project (Gerstle et al. 1980) conducted under unified
testing procedures reported the following conclusions;
(a) Considerable scatter of measured strain were observed for concrete under applied multiaxial
stresses. Probabilistic methods are needed for more meaningful treatment of data.
(b) The behavior of concrete can be represented conveniently in terms of the octahedral normal
(hydrostatic) and shear (deviatoric) stresses 0 and 0 . The assumption of isotropy is not
substantially violated at a macroscopic level up to stress close to failure.
1
3
1
0 =
( 1 2 ) 2 + ( 2 3 ) 2 + ( 3 1 ) 2
3
1
0 = (1 + 2 + 3 )
3
1
0 =
(1 2 ) 2 + ( 2 3 ) 2 + ( 3 1 ) 2
3
0 = ( 1 + 2 + 3 )
(c) The direct relationships between volumetric and deviatoric stresses and strains are governed
by the bulk modulus Ks and shear modulus Gs.
0 ( 0 )
E
(=
: elastic case)
3 0
3(1 2 )
( )
E
: elastic case)
Gs ( 0 ) = 0 0 (=
2 0
2(1 + )
K s ( 0 ) =
(4) A coupling effect between octahedral shear stress and volumetric strain is systematically
observed and can be described by introducing a coupling modulus Hs.
Hs =
0
0
Three stress and strain dependent moduli appear to be sufficient to describe the behavior of
concrete under monotonically increasing loads.
Models based on the theory of elasticity (Elwi and Murray, 1979, Stankowski and Gerstle, 1985,
Shafer and Ottosen, 1985, Buyukozturk and Shareef, 1985), models based on the theory of plasticity
(Han and Chen, 1987), and models based on the mechanism of micro-cracking or elastic damage
(Dougill, 1976, Resende and Martin, 1984, Krajcinovic and Fonseka, 1981, Mazars, 1984) are
introduced in Comite Euro-International du Beton Report (1996).
References:
Attard, M. M., S. Setunge, The Stress Strain Relationship of Confined and Unconfined Concrete,
Material Journal, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 93, No. 5, 1996, pp. 432 - 442.
Blakeley, R. W. G., et al., Prestressed Concrete Sections with Cyclic Flexure, Journal, Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. ST8, August 1973, pp. 1717 - 1742.
Buyukozturk, O., et al., Stress-strain Response and Fracture of a Concrete Model in Biaxial
Loading, Journal, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 68, No. 8, August 1971, pp. 590 - 599.
Buyukozturk, O. and S. S. Shareef, Constitutive Modeling of Concrete in Finite Element Analysis,
Computers and Structures, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1985.
Comite Euro-International du Beton, Concrete under Multiaxial States of Stress, Constitutive
Equations for Practical Design, CEB, Lausanne, 1983, Bulletin dInformation No. 156.
Comite Euro-International du Beton: RC Elements under Cyclic Loading - State of the Art Report,
Thomas Telford, 1996, 190 pp.
Darwin, D. and D. A. W. Pecknold, Inelastic Model for Cyclic Biaxial Loading of Reinforced
Concrete, Structural Research Series No. 409, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, July 1974.
Desayi, P., and S. Krishnan, Equation for the Stress-strain Curve of Concrete, Journal, American
Concrete Institute, Vol. 61, No.3, March 1964, pp. 345 - .
Dougil, J. W., On Stable Progressively Fracturing Solids, Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und
Physik, Vol. 27, Fasc. 4, 1976, pp. 423 - 437.
Duda, H., Bruchmechanincsche Verhalten von Beton unter monotoner und zyklischer
Zugbeanstruchung, Doctoral Thesis, Technical Hochschule Darmstadt, 1990.
Elwi, A. A., and D. W. Murray, A 3D Hypoelastic Concrete Constitutive Relationship, Journal,
Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, August 1979.
Room temperature
Strain, mm/mm
The range of cyclic strain history, to which reinforcing bars are likely to be subjected, differs
significantly from that of structural steel members; i.e., compressive strains are not as large as tensile
strains. Under a flexural condition, reinforcing bars resist tensile stresses after concrete cracking,
while compressive stress is resisted by concrete. When concrete cover spalls after crushing of
concrete, reinforcing bars may yield in compression. The Bauschinger effect is important in
simulating the behavior of reinforced concrete especially when the compression stresses are resisted
solely by reinforcing bars during crack opening immediately after unloading.
Any stress-strain relation under
repeated and reversed loading can be
decomposed into three parts, (a) skeleton
part, (b) unloading part and (c) softening
part. Kato Akiyama and Yamanouchi
(1973) demonstrated that if a series of
progressively larger hysteretic loops are
known for a given material, a monotonic
stress-strain curve can be constructed
with a reasonable degree of accuracy. by
plotting the stress-strain relations for
positive
and
negative
directions
separately. In a cluster of cyclic hysteresis
loops, the bold lines are defined as the
skeleton parts, which are the portions of
the curves at stresses of the same sign
larger than the ones during the previous
cycles. Fine straight lines are the
unloading parts and the dashed lines are
Reloading stiffness after unloading from the skeleton
softening parts in which the Bauschinger
effect is dominant. Connecting the
skeleton lines end to start, either above or below the horizontal axis given curves similar to those
found from monotonic experiments except for the first yielding region; i.e., any skeleton line is always
a part of the monotonic stress-strain curve. Any unloading line can be approximated by a straight line.
Reloading curve after unloading from the skeleton curve in the opposite direction can be expressed
by
E
a)( B + a 1) a(1 a) = 0
s
s
E
E EB
where E : Youngs modulus, EB : secant modulus on the monotonic loading curve at stress level
s and strain B as shown below. The expression for a was obtained by equating the tangent
a=
stiffness at zero stress level to be equal to the Youngs modulus. The secant stiffness EB can be
empirically expressed as
EB =
where
E
log10 10 s
6
The stress-strain relationship of metal is simulated by Ramberg and Osgood (1943) for the
skeleton and reloading cases;
=
(1 +
y y
y
r 1
0 0
0
=
(1 +
2 y
2 y
2 y
r 1
Park, Kent and Sampson (1972) proposed the modification of the Ramberg-Osgood model as
follows:
s si = (1 + s
ch
Es
ch = sy {
r 1
0.744
0.71
+ 0.2411}
ln(1 + 1000 ip ) 1 e1000ip
4.49
6.03
n
+ 0.297
ln(1 + n ) ( e 1)
2.20
0.469
n
+ 3.04
r=
ln(1 + n ) ( e 1)
r=
for odd n
for even n
where
ip : plastic strain
s = E0 s
for
s = y1 + E1 ( s y )
for y < s sh
s = y 2 + E2 ( s sh )
s y
for sh < s
S 1 e
=
=
E S 1 e
S
1
= ln[1 (1 e ) * ]
* =
E S
E * = E0 E S =
E S 1 e
where, parameter may be calculated for the
third equation for given stresses S , E and
strains S , E at the two outer most unloading
*
points.
2.3 Bond
A mechanism of stress transfer between a reinforcing bar and surrounding concrete in the form
shear stress on reinforcement surface is called "bond," developed by (a) chemical adhesion between
mortar paste and bar surface, (b) friction on rough steel surface and (c) mechanical interlocking of
ribs with surrounding concrete.
Adhesion bond is known to break at an earlier
stage of relative deformation (slippage) of a bar
and concrete. Major source of resistance after
initial bar slippage is the mechanical interlocking.
At the inclined face of bar deformation, stress is
transferred by direct contact (bearing) stress
normal to the face and friction stress along the
face.
When the ribs on a deformed bar is high and
spaced too closely, the shear failure occurs along
the cylindrical concrete surface connecting the
top of adjacent ribs.
When the rib spacing is larger, the concrete crushes at the rib face, and crushed concrete forms a
wedge in front of the rib; hence surrounding
concrete is pushed outward by force in the
reinforcing bar, and tensile force, called "ring (or
circumferential) tension", is developed in the
circumferential direction of the bar face.
Therefore, surrounding concrete is split by this
ring tension stress.
Bond stress (average shear stress over bar
surface) free-end slip relation is shown below
for a pull-out test, in which concrete strength
was 25 MPa. Deformed bar D16 and round bar
16 were used in the test. Maximum bond
stress is developed at approximately 0.1 to 0.3
mm slip deformation.
The bond strength may be affected by (a)
concrete strength, (b) deformation of a
reinforcing bar surface, (c) bar size (Poisson's
effect), (d) bar stress (tension or compression),
(e) bar location, (f) concrete cover depth over a
bar, (g) lateral reinforcement, (h) lateral
pressure, and (i) anchorage length.
Eligehausen et al. (1983) suggests bond stress-bar slip relation under monotonically increasing
loading;
s
s1
= 1 ( )
for
= 1
for
s1 < s s2
for
s2 < s
= 1 +
3 1
s3 s2
( s s2 )
s s1
Cycles with reversed loading produce degradation of bond strength and bond stiffness. The rate of
degradation is more pronounced under reversed loading than under uni-directional loading.
Degradation depends on the previous peak slip in either direction, the number of cycles and the
difference of the peak slips in the two directions. Significant strength decay is observed with slip
amplitude under reversed loading. If the peak bond stress during cycling does not exceed
approximately 70 percent of monotonic bond strength, the bond stress-slip relation is stable.
Case 1: If a slip reversal is imposed before inclined cracking, unloading branch exhibits high
stiffness (path AF) because only a small part of the slip is caused by inelastic concrete deformation.
As soon as slip in the opposite direction is imposed, the friction branch is reached (path FH). The
slope of this portion of the curve is small because the surface of the concrete surrounding the bar is
smooth. As soon as the cracks close, the stiffness differs little from that of the monotonic envelope
(point I). Unloading from point I, where the slip in the two directions is about equal, the curve (path
IKL) is very similar to that from the initial unloading curve (path AFH). The major difference is that due
to previous cracking and crushing of the concrete in front of the ribs, the point where the bond
stresses begin to pick up again (point L) will be shifted to the right of the origin. The lug will not be
bearing fully until point M is reached. Further loading follows the bond-slip curve up to the monotonic
envelope.
Case 2: If unloading occurs after the inclined cracks were formed, and therefore near the slip at
which ultimate bond stress has been attained, the unloading path is similar to that of the first case up
to point F. Since there is more damage to the concrete, a higher frictional resistance is mobilized
(point G). When the loading is reversed the lug presses against a key whose resistance has been
lowered by inclined cracks over a part of its length that were induced by the first half-cycle. The
splitting cracks created in the first half-cycle close at a higher load than those of the first case (point
H), and lead to an earlier formation of splitting cracks in the opposite directions. Splitting cracks,
combined with the existing inclined cracks along the bar, result in a reduced envelope (path HI) and a
reduction of bond capacity in the second direction (point I). Unloading from this peak (path IKLMN)
and reversing the load results in a reduced stiffness and strength because only the remaining
uncrushed concrete between the lugs must be sheared off. The bond strength (point N) is
substantially lower than that of point C, and lower than that of point I.
Additional models for bond stress-bar slip hysteresis models can be found in Refs. Viwathanatepa,
S. and et al. (1979), Hawkins et al. (1982) and Balaz (1989).
References:
Balazs, G. L., Bond Softening under Reversed Load Cycles, Stui e Ricerche - Corso Flli. Presenti,
Pollitecnico di Milano, No. 11, 1989, pp. 503 - 524.
Eligehausen, R., V. V. Bertero, and E. Popov, Local Bond Stress-slip Relationships of Deformed
Bars under Generalized Excitations, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No.
EERC 83-23, University of California, Berkeley, October 1983.
Hawkins, H. M., et al., Local Bond Strength of Concrete for Cyclic Reversed Loadings, Bond in
Concrete, P. Bartos (ed.), Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London, 1982, pp. 151 - 161.
Morita, S. and T. Kaku, Local Bond Stress-slip Relationship under Repeated Loading, Proceedings,
IABSE Symposium on Resistance and Ultimate Deformability on Structures Acted on by Well
Defined Repeated Loads, Lisbon, 1973, pp. 221 - 227.
Viwathanatepa, S. and et al., Effect of Generalized loadings on Bond of Reinforcing Bars embedded
in Confined Concrete Blocks, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 79/22,
University of California, Berkeley, August 1979.
Assignment No. 1
20020222
S. Otani
When a concrete specimen is tested under monotonically increasing deformation, the descending
part of the stress-strain relationship is difficult to obtain due to the sudden release of elastic energy by
the frame of a testing machine.
In order to understand this phenomenon, consider the following mathematical model, in which a
concrete cylinder is subjected to forced displacement through a linearly elastic spring representing
the stiffness of the testing machine.
The forced displacement is applied to the system at a constant rate of 0.1 mm/sec. The
force-deformation of the concrete specimen is given below. Plot the load-deformation relation of the
concrete specimen and of the loading point at 0.1 sec interval.
Discuss the force deformation relation of the concrete for the two cases for the stiffness of the
testing machine; elastic stiffness of (a) 100 kN/mm, (b) 150 kN/mm, and (c) 300 kN/mm.
Constant
displacement
Force, kN
300
Testing
Machine
0.5
1.0
Displacement, mm
3.0
Concrete
Specimen
Solution:
1) Equilibrium of forces: Forces
machine Pspring should be the same, and equal to the force P in the testing machine.
P = Pconcrete = Pspring
2) Displacement compatibility: The applied displacement D by the testing machine should be equal
to the sum of displacement Dconcrete in the concrete cylinder and displacement Dspring of the frame.
D = Dconcrete + Dspring
The stress-strain relation of the concrete is piece-wise linear and the stiffness of the testing machine
is linearly elastic. Therefore, we need to consider the three points.
Point A:
300
Point B:
Force, kN
Concrete
0.5
1.0
Displacement, mm
Dconcrete = 3.0 mm
Dspring = 0.0 kN / kspring
D = 3.0 mm
Displacement at the loading head.
Point
A
Spring 100 kN/mm
3.5 mm
Spring 150 kN/mm
2.5 mm
Spring 300 kN/mm
1.5 mm
B
4.0 mm
3.0 mm
2.0 mm
C
3.0 mm (not controllable)
3.0 mm (sudden failure)
3.0 mm
C
3.0
Flexural Deformation and Shear Deformation: The flexural deformation is associated with the
Bernoullis hypothesis that the plane section normal to the member axis before bending remains
plane after bending. The flexural deformation is attributed to the normal stress acting on the section.
Shear force causes deformation in the direction normal to the member axis. There exists the
interaction of flexural and shear deformation, and the two deformations cannot be clearly separated
after the formation of cracking. Additional rotational deformation of a beam is resulted near the critical
section of bending from the pull-out of the longitudinal reinforcement from its anchorage zone.
The flexural deformation (average curvature) is obtained from longitudinal strain measurements at
the top and bottom chords assuming that a plane section remains plane after bending. Similar to the
flexural deformation, a shear deformation index is defined from strain measurements in the two
diagonal directions. This index does not represent the true shear deformation because the
deformation cannot be simply divided into the classical flexure and shear deformations once a shear
cracking occurs in a member.
=
=
(A '1 A1 ) + (A '2 A 2 )
h
5 6
2
(h 21 + A1 )
h1 A1
h1 + h2
2
A + A7
A1 = 6
2
h1 =
A typical moment-average curvature curve obtained from a simply supported beam test (Celebi
and Penzien, 1973) shows that the stiffness during loading gradually decreases with load, forming a
fat hysteresis loop and absorbing a large hysteresis energy. The hysteresis loops remain almost
identical even after several load reversals at the same displacement amplitude beyond yielding. A
typical lateral load-shear deformation index curve obtained in the same specimen shows the stiffness
during loading gradually increases with load, exhibiting a "pinching" in the curve. The hysteretic
energy dissipation is smaller. The hysteresis loop decays with the number of load reversals, resulting
in a smaller resistance at the same peak displacement in each repeated loading cycle. Although the
curve shows a "yielding" phenomenon, it is important to recognize that the shear force of the member
was limited by flexural yielding at the critical section rather than by yielding in shear. This yielding
clearly indicate the interaction of shear and bending.
Flexure Dominant Behavior: In the virgin loading branch, flexural cracking near the cross-section of
maximum moment reduces the initial elastic stiffness. The specimen continues to soften with loading
after cracking due to the spreading of cracking along the specimen length, crack opening associated
with tension softening of concrete and bond-slip of the reinforcement between cracks. Yielding of
tensile reinforcement causes an abrupt and sharp reduction in stiffness. Even after the flexural
yielding, the resistance continues to increase due to the shift of neutral axis and later due to strain
hardening of reinforcement. Spalling of the concrete in compression has a negative effect on the
resistance.
Upon unloading after post-yielding, the
unloading stiffness is generally high, but gradually
softens at lower loading level. A significant residual
deformation exists even after the removal of loads
caused by permanent strain in longitudinal
reinforcement and residual bar slip. Cracks remain
open at the removal of loads due to the residual
bar slip. The overall unloading stiffness degrades
with increasing plastic deformation amplitudes.
Reloading stiffness immediately after load
reversal is generally low until opened cracks close;
Dominant flexural behavior of beam
the compression by bending moment must be
(Celebi and Penzien, 1973)
resisted by the compressive reinforcement. The
reloading stiffness gradually recovers with the closing of cracks. Although the first post-elastic
excursion may be considered as virgin loading in the reloading direction, the softening is more
gradual than in the initial yielding direction partly attributable to the Bauschinger effect of the steel.
The resistance at the previous maximum displacement reaches the level of the previous maximum
resistance.
When the reloading branch reaches the previous maximum response point, further loading
proceeds along the continuation of the virgin loading branch. Flexural failure of beams due to cyclic
loading is gradual, controlled by progressive deterioration in the compressive zone such as spalling of
concrete and local buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement. The reinforcement sometimes fracture
in tension in the subsequent half cycle after bucking.
Clear definition of failure is difficult in flexure dominated members unless tensile fracture of
longitudinal reinforcement is observed. Therefore, failure is often defined in the experiment as a point
where the resistance can not recover approximately 80 percent of the maximum resistance. It should
be noted that this definition of failure point is affected by the loading history.
Member deformation capacity is defined as the ratio (ductility ratio) of the deformation at failure to
the deformation at flexural yielding. The definition of yield point is sometimes difficult to determine
especially when the tensile reinforcement is placed in double layers.
In the last specimen (Specimen C4xna), the tensile reinforcement ratio was 1.90%, but 0.98%
compressive reinforcement was added in the section. The result showed small increase in flexural
resistance of Specimen C4xna compared with the resistance of Specimen T4La, but the deformation
capacity was significantly improved by the use of compressive reinforcement.
Flexural Member with Unsymmetric Cross Section: Beams are often not symmetrically reinforced
at the top and bottom. Even if the top and bottom are equally reinforced, the contribution of slab
reinforcement to beam flexural resistance will result in bending resistances different in positive and
negative bending. During the reloading in the weak direction with open cracks on the compression
side, tensile yielding is not enough to cause the compression bars to yield and cracks to close.
Therefore, during the reloading in the weak direction after yielding in the strong direction, cracks
remain open over full-depth near the critical section, the compression stress under bending must be
resisted by the compression reinforcement. The pinching of hysteresis shape occurs upon reloading
in the strong direction because high compression stress must be resisted by small amount of
longitudinal reinforcement before cracks closing.
Failure of unsymmetrically reinforced section occurs in two forms; (a) gradual progressive
compressive failure of the weaker side, and (b) abrupt fracture of tensile reinforcement in the weak
side.
Effect of Shear-span-to-depth Ratio: Shear-span to depth ratio is the most significant parameter
that influences the shear deformation characteristics. In a beam of small shear-span-to-depth ratio,
shear deformation becomes appreciable compared with bending deformation. Dominant shear
response causes a more pronounced pinching in the
force-deformation (hysteresis) curve, and a faster
degradation of the hysteresis energy dissipating capacity.
Considerable improvements in delaying and reducing the
degrading effects can be accomplished by using closely
spaced ties. The state of the knowledge is not sufficient to
define the stiffness degrading parameters on the basis of
the member geometry and material properties.
When the shear span-depth ratio becomes less than
two, the effect of shear becomes important. Garstka et al.
(1993) demonstrated the effect of shear-span-depth ratio
on the force-deformation curves under monotonically
increasing loading. The compression zone of the concrete
is severely damaged with a decreasing shear span-depth
ratio by the diagonal strut action.
Shear Failure Modes: Shear failure of reinforced concrete members takes place in the from of (a)
diagonal tension failure, (b) shear compression failure, and (c) shear tension failure.
Shear failure became notorious by the experience of abrupt shear failure of members in diagonal
tension mode. This mode of shear failure occurs abruptly in a relatively slender member with light
amount of lateral reinforcement; i.e., the amount of lateral reinforcement is not sufficient to resist
tensile forces previously carried by concrete before diagonal shear cracking.
Failure in shear compression mode is relatively ductile, in which concrete in diagonal direction fails
in compression after tensile yielding of lateral reinforcement.
Failure in shear tension mode takes place in the form of bond splitting failure along longitudinal
reinforcement after formation of diagonal shear cracks.
Shear strength may be affected by (a) tensile reinforcement ratio, (b) shear span-to-depth ratio, (c)
shear reinforcement ratio, and (d) arrangement of shear reinforcement.
The shear reinforcement is inactive up to the occurrence of inclined cracking. Shear reinforcement,
upon yielding, develops large plastic strain. During unloading stage, large residual strain remains due
to relative movement along inclined shear cracking. Unloading and reloading after yielding of lateral
reinforcement leads to a gradual build-up of permanent tensile strain in lateral reinforcement. During
reloading, slippage along the inclined cracking takes place at low stiffness exhibiting a pinching effect.
Specimen No 3
Specimen
No.9
Deformation, mm
pw=0.3%
pw=0.6%
pw=0.6%
pw=0.9%
pw=0.3%
pw=0.6%
pw=0.3%
Displ.
Displ.
pw=0.9%
Displ.
Displ.
Member deflection angle R is defined as lateral deflection divided by the member length. A
reinforced concrete member designed in accordance with Japanese seismic force is known to yield in
flexure approximately at a member deflection angle of 1/200 rad. Shear dominated specimens
exhibited thin and S-shaped hysteresis loops compared with flexure dominated specimens.
Effective Width of T-beam: A girder and slabs, cast monolithically, act integrally as a T-beam; a part
of the slab acts as the flange of the girder under bending, increasing stiffness and flexural resistance
when the girder is subjected to negative bending. Therefore, slabs on either side of the girder should
be considered in evaluating the stiffness and flexural resistance of the girder.
Under positive bending causing, compression stress at the top fiber, the stress at extreme
compressive fiber of the slab decay with distance from the girder face due to shear deformation in the
flange (shear lag) (Park and Paulay, 1975). The slab increases flexural stiffness, but does not
increase the resistance appreciably.
Under negative bending, slab reinforcement parallel to the girder increases the bending resistance
of the girder. Width of slab in which the longitudinal reinforcement is effective to girder flexural
resistance, increases with lateral deformation.
Suzuki et al. (1984) tested half-scale three-dimensional beam-column sub-assemblages under
bi-directional horizontal load reversals (. The beam dimensions were 200 x 300 mm, reinforced by
4-D13 bars at the top and 4-D13 bars at the bottom. The column dimensions were 300 mm square,
reinforced by 8-D13 bars. The
yield stress of D13 bars was 366
MPa, and concrete strength in
beams was 19.5 MPa. The slab
was 70 mm thick and 2,440 mm
wide, reinforced by D6 bars at
200 mm on centers.
The strain in slab longitudinal
reinforcement was shown to
increase with lateral deformation
applied to the specimen, and the
region
of
yielding
slab
reinforcement became wider. The
resistance at the final stage was
close to the resistance calculated
using
entire
slab
tensile
reinforcement. The spread of the
effective width of slab affects the
stiffness after yielding.
A seven-story full-scale building specimen was tested under pseudo-dynamic loading (Yoshimura
and Kurose, 1985). Strains in slab reinforcement were measured during the test. The sum of slab
stress divided by the yield stress of slab reinforcement gave equivalent number of yielded slab
reinforcing bars. They indicated that the slab reinforcement in a width equal to three to four times the
normally assumed effective slab width (slab width equal to one-tenth of the girder span) yielded at a
story drift angle of 1/75 rad.
References:
Celebi, M., and J. Penzien, "Experimental Investigation into the Seismic Behavior of Critical Region of
Reinforced Concrete Components as Influenced by Moment and Shear," Report EERC No. 73-4,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, 1973.
Comite Euro-Internationa du Beton, RC Frames under Earthquake Loading - State of the Art
Report, Thomas Telford, 1996, 303 pp.
French, C. W., and A. Boroojerdi, "Contribution of RC Floor Slabs in Resisting Lateral Loads," Journal,
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 1, January 1989, pp. 1-18.
Fujisawa, M., et al., "Study on Ductility of Girders, Pilot Tests (in Japanese)," Report on Development
of High-rise Frame Wall Structures, Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, 1988.
Garstka, B., et al., Damage Assessment in Cyclically Loaded Reinforced Concrete Members,
Cyclically Loaded Reinforced Concrete Members, Structural Dynamics, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol.
Higashi et a. (1977) showed the influence of loading history on the response of shear failing
beams under one-way loading and reversal loading. The reduction in resistance after yielding is
significant when the specimen fails in shear. It is difficult to generalize the hysteresis relation for this
type of failure.
Monotonicaly loading
Cyclic or reversed loading
Columns
with
Confining
Reinforcement:
Lateral
reinforcement is known to confine the core concrete and
enhance the compressive strength and deformation capacity
of the confined concrete. The effect of confining reinforcement
is important; a column with closely spaced stirrups and
well-distributed longitudinal reinforcement shows very little
strength decay even subjected to high axial force above the
balance point.
Rabbat et al. (1986) showed the improvement of
deformation capacity with additional lateral reinforcement. The
axial force level was 0.30 times the compressive strength of
concrete area. The lateral reinforcement ratios of the two
specimens were 0.74% and 1.60%. The column with small
amount of lateral reinforcement failed before flexural yielding,
while the column with large lateral reinforcement maintained
stable hysteresis. The lateral reinforcement can confine the
core concrete and delay the compression failure of concrete
and also increase shear resistance.
Specimen M12 (pw = 1.20 %), high-strength lateral reinforcement ( wy = 1,397 MPa) in Specimen
U06 (pw = 0.56 %) and Specimen U12 (pw = 1.12 %), and band plate of 25 x 2.3 mm at 50 mm on
centers in Specimen BP12. Longitudinal reinforcement was common among the specimens; 16-D10
bars ( wy = 400 MPa) were used in a section with gross reinforcement ratio of 2.58 %. Concrete
strength was 25 to 28 MPa.
Rectangular Spiral
Band Plate
Welding Failure
Welding Failure
Load
Tie Fracture
Tie Fracture
No Reinf.
Strain
Sugano et al., 1985
Deformation of each column was measured over middle 375 mm length on opposite two faces.
All specimens reached maximum resistance at strain between 0.3 to 0.5 %, and the resistance
deteriorated by fracture of lateral reinforcement. The use of lateral reinforcement is seen to enhance
the strength and deformation capacity of a reinforced concrete column. The following can be
observed in the figure;
(a) For the same type of lateral reinforcement, the axial deformation capacity can be observed to
increase with increasing amount of lateral reinforcement.
(b) High strength lateral reinforcement (Specimens U06 and U12) can develop larger deformation
capacity than normal strength lateral reinforcement (Specimens S06 and S12).
(c) Steel band plate did not perform well compared.
(d) Welded wire fabric appears to be most effective in the series.
(e) Thin but closely placed lateral reinforcement is more effective than large but far spaced lateral
reinforcement.
Another example is shown to demonstrate the effect of lateral (confining) reinforcement on the
deformation capacity of reinforced concrete columns. The two specimens have the same dimensions
and the same amount of longitudinal reinforcement. The amount of lateral reinforcement was varied
from 1.2% (Specimen A2) to 2.0% (Specimen A4) in the two specimens. Specimen A2 could develop
flexural yielding and maintain the resistance to a story drift angle of 1.5/100, while Specimen A4 could
maintain the resistance to a story drift angle of 4/100.
Column subjected to Axial Load and Bending: The yield and ultimate moments under monotonic
loading increase with the compressive axial force below the balanced load level. The stiffness in
virgin loading, unloading and reloading increases with the level of axial force. It is generally known
that a column subjected to compression force above the balanced point cannot develop large plastic
deformation beyond yielding because compressed concrete deteriorates at a faster rate. Axial force
closes cracks at a low lateral force in a column. This phenomenon is different from the behavior of a
beam.
The strength degrades considerably with cycling when the axial force level is near or above the
balance point. Rabbat et al. (1986) tested columns with different levels of axial force and
demonstrates the effect of axial force level on the column deformation capacity. The lateral
reinforcement ratio was 1.74 percent in the specimens. The axial force was 10, 20 and 30 percent of
the compressive strength of the concrete area. The column subjected to low axial force level
developed flexural yielding and exhibited reasonable deformation capacity under lateral load
reversals until failure occurred in compression side. The column subjected to higher axial load, on the
other hand, did not develop flexural yielding.
Column subjected to Varying Axial Load: Exterior columns and corner columns are subjected to
varying axial load and bi-directional lateral load reversals during an actual earthquake, while interior
columns are subjected to almost constant axial loads. The level of varying axial forces is limited by
the formation of yield hinges at the beams in the structure; the upper limit is the sum of shears in the
exterior beams at the formation of yield hinges at the two ends. Variation of axial force is more closely
related to shear acting in the first story column.
Sakaguchi et al. (1985) tested two columns of 450 x 450 mm section subjected to varying axial
load (0.6 Nuc to 0.7 Nut for an exterior column) or constant axial load (0.35 B Ae for an interior
sy = 411 MPa). Lateral reinforcement ratio was 1.27 % (exterior and interior spiral reinforcement of
4-D10 at 50 or 60 mm spacing, yield stress wy = 390 MPa). Clear height was 1,640 mm. Steel
H-section was embedded at the centroid of section to resist high tensile force. During the loading, the
inflection was maintained at column mid-height.
Both specimens showed good performance, dominated by flexure, up to member rotational angle
(lateral deformation divided by clear member length) of 1/50 rad. However, the resistance started to
decay at a larger deformation in the exterior column due to high level of axial force. The loading
condition of constant axial force is severer to a specimen than that of varying axial load as long as the
axial force amplitudes of the two loading cases are comparable.
Maximum Load
Maximum Load
Calculated
Strength
Calculated Strength
Maximum Load
Maximum Load
Li et al. (1986) tested a cantilever column (200 x 200 x 570 mm) under varying axial load and
uni-axial lateral load reversal. Eight D10 bars were used as longitudinal reinforcement (yield stress
sy = 426 MPa). Lateral reinforcement ratio was 0.64 % (2-D6@50 mm, yield stress wy = 394 MPa).
Concrete strength was 27.6 MPa.
Axial stress was varied by 2 MPa from the static value of 2 MPa proportional to lateral resistance
of the column. As expected, the flexural resistance increased with increased axial load in positive
direction: "interaction of axial force and flexural resistance". The resistance started to decay after
buckling of longitudinal reinforcement in the positive direction.
Additional test results were reported by Gibertsen and Moehle (1980), Kreger and Linbeck (1986),
Abrams (1987) and Ristic et al. (1986, 1988).
resistance."
Greece, 1993.
Fujii, S., Study on Reinforced Concrete Columns subjected to Biaxial Flexure (in Japanese), M. eng.
Thesis, Department of Architecture, University of Tokyo, 1974.
Gibertsen, N. and J. P. Moehle, Experimental Study of Small Scale R/C Columns subjected to Axial
Load and Shear Reversals, Structural Research Series No. 481, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Illinois at Urbana, 1980.
Higashi, Y., M. Ohkubo and M. Ohtsuka, Influence of Loading Excursions on Restoring Force
Characteristics and Failure Modes of Reinforced Concrete Columns, Paper No. 11-23, Sixth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi, January 1977.
Kreger, M., and L. Linbeck, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns subjected to Lateral and Axial
Loading Reversals, Proceedings, Third U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Charleston, South Carolina, Vol. , pp. 1475 - 1486, 1986.
Li, K.-N., et al., "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns subjected to Varying Axial Load and
Bi-directional Horizontal Earthquake Loads (in Japanese)," Proceedings, Eighth Annual
Conference, Japan Concrete Institute, pp. 489-492, 1986.
Low, S., and J. P. Moehle, Experimental Study of Reinforced Concrete Columns subjected to
Multi-axial Cyclic Loading, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at
Berkeley, EERC Report 87-14,1987.
Otani, S, "Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Building Structures," Canadian Journal
of Civil Engineering, Vol. 7, National Research Council of Canada, pp. 333-344, 1980.
Otani, S., and V. W.-T. Cheung, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns under Biaxial Lateral
Load Reversals, - (II) Test without Axial Loads, Department of Civil Engineering Publication 81-02,
University of Toronto, February 1981, 127 pp.
Rabbat, B., et al., Seismic Behavior of Light-weight and Normal-weight Concrete Columns, Journal,
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 83, Jan.-Feb. 1986, pp. 69 - 78..
Ristic, D., et al., Effect of Variation of Axial Forces to Hysteretic Earthquake Response of Reinforced
Concrete Structures, Proceedings, Eighth European Conference on Earthquake engineering,
Lisbon, Vol. 4, 7.4, 1986, pp. 49 - 56.
Ristic, D., et al., Inelastic Stress-strain based Seismic Response Prediction of RC Structures
considering Dynamically Varying Axial Forces, Proceedings, Ninth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, 1988, Vol. VI, pp. 531 - 536.
Saatcioglu, M., "Modeling Hysteretic Force-Deformation Relations for Reinforced Concrete
Elements," ACI SP-127, Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures - Inelastic Response and
Design, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1991, pp. 153-198.
Saatcioglu, M., and G. Azcebe, Response of Reinforced Concrete Columns to Simulated Seismic
Loading, Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 86, Jan.-Feb. 1989, pp. 3 12.
Sakaguchi, N., et al., "Study on Structural Characteristics of High-rise Reinforced Concrete
Residential Buildings (Part 2: Strength Test of Columns) (in Japanese)," Summary Report, Annual
Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Structures 2, pp. 153-154, October 1985.
Sugano, S., et al., "Experimental Study on High-rise Reinforced Concrete Buildings (Part 1: Outline of
Study and Compression Test of Columns) (in Japanese)," Summary Report, Annual Meeting,
Architectural Institute of Japan, Structures 2, pp. 145-146, October 1985.
Vc1
Cs2
Ts1
Cc2
Vjh=Ts1+Ts2-Vc1
Cc2
Ts2
Vc2
Cs1
Parameters to affect the joint performance are (a) amount of joint hoop, (b) column axial force, (c)
input intensity of joint shear, (d) concrete compressive strength, (e) bond demand along beam bars
through joint, and (f) presence of transverse beams.
The beam-column sub-assemblage may fail in three modes; i.e., (a) shear failure in the connection
before flexural yielding at girder ends, (b) shear failure after flexural yielding at girder ends, (c)
flexural yielding at girder ends, and (d) bond failure along the beam longitudinal reinforcement. There
exist significant interaction of shear resistance and bond resistance along the beam longitudinal
reinforcement.
Examples of crack patterns and shear-shear distortion relations in the interior beam-column
connection are shown. In the first specimen (a), large distortion (large diagonal extension but small
diagonal compression) is observed in the beam-column connection with the reduction in shear
resistance; extensive damage was observed in the connection. In the second specimen (b), the
distortion in the beam-column connection was small before beam flexural yielding, but the connection
distortion increased significantly after the beam yielding. When the connection is reinforced with
sufficient lateral reinforcement, the shear distortion of the connection becomes small (the third
specimen). The beam-column joint sometimes fails after developing flexural yielding at beam ends
although the shear input into the connection was controlled by the beam yielding. The shear strength
is not a unique value of the joint, but the resistance deteriorates with the damage within the joint.
Crack pattern
Story drift
-2
Crack Pattern
Crack pattern
Truss
along the beam longitudinal reinforcement especially after flexural yielding at the beam ends.
Paulay et al. (1978) postulated that a diagonal compression strut develops at the initial load stage
before significant cycles of flexural hinging cause residual reinforcement strain and full-depth
cracking so that shear forces are introduced to the joint by normal stresses acting in the compression
zones of the framing members. A minimum amount of joint hoop reinforcement is necessary for
confinement purpose at this stage. Following bar yield penetration and bond deterioration during
repeated inelastic excursion, the shear input is resisted by a self-equilibrating truss mechanism that
consists of a network of small compressive struts in the core concrete and of tensile forces in the
horizontal and vertical joint reinforcement (including the longitudinal reinforcement of the column).
Kitayama et al. (1991) compared the behavior of two beam-column assembly specimens J1 and
C1. The overall dimensions and loading methods of the two specimens are the same. Beams
(200x300 mm) of Specimen J1 were reinforced with 8-D13 deformed bars (cross sectional area
As=1016 mm2, and yield stress fy=402 MPa) and 4-D13 bars at the bottom (As=508 mm2), while those
of Specimen C1 were reinforced with 12-D10 bars (As= 856 mm2 and fy= 323 MPa) at the top and
6-D10 bars (As=428 mm2). The amount of lateral reinforcement in the connection was the same
(lateral reinforcement ratio of 0.38%). Note that the tensile reinforcement ratio was quite high
compared to that commonly used in a frame structure. Both specimens were designed to yield at the
end of beams. Bond stress transfer along the beam reinforcement within the connection was severer
in Specimen J1 by the use of larger diameter and higher strength reinforcement.
Specimen J1 was judged
to fail in shear in the joint at a
story drift angle of 1/23 rad by
crushing and spalling of shell
concrete; X-shaped cracks
gradually opened along the
main
diagonal
with
deformation. Specimen C1
developed beam yielding with
fine diagonal cracks uniformly
developed in the connection.
Specimen J1 exhibited a
pinching hysteretic shape
especially after a story drift
angle of 1/46 rad, while
Specimen C1 developed a
good
spindle-shape
hysteresis. It should be
pointed out that the shear
stress level in Specimen J1 was approximately 1.25 times larger than that in Specimen C1.
The crack patterns in the joint support the modeling of the shear resistance of a beam-column
connection as the diagonal strut and truss mechanisms. Note that Specimen J1 developed shear
cracks initially caused by the truss mechanism, but the shear cracks in the mail diagonal became
dominant at a larger deformation; i.e., the truss mechanism deteriorated with the bond deterioration
along the beam longitudinal reinforcement, and the principal stress concentrated along the main
diagonal strut to cause shear failure. On the other hand, the diagonal strut and truss mechanisms
were maintained in Specimen C1; diagonal compression stresses distributed uniformly in the panel
concrete. The diagonal strut mechanism can exist without any bond stress transfer along the beam
reinforcement within the connection, while the truss mechanism can exist only when a good bond
stress transfer is maintained. The bond along the beam reinforcement inevitably deteriorates
especially after the beam flexural yielding unless the strength and size of the reinforcement are
strictly controlled.
Liande and Jirsa (1982) discussed the shear resistance of interior beam-column joints as the
diagonal compressive strut mechanism. This concept is accepted in ACI-ASCE Committee 352 report
(1985).
Otani (1991) suggests that the truss mechanism can be effective only when the bond resistance
along the longitudinal reinforcement is maintained. After load reversals of flexural hinging, it is difficult
to maintain the bond resistance along the beam reinforcement; hence, the shear must be resisted by
the main diagonal strut. Lateral reinforcement is necessary to confine cracked core concrete.
Lateral Reinforcement: Lateral reinforcement participates in the truss mechanism and confines the
core concrete in the beam-column connection. Noguchi and Kurusu (1987) reported that the strain in
lateral reinforcement was much larger if the bond resistance along the longitudinal reinforcement was
better. The lateral reinforcement may confine the core concrete in the connection, enhancing the
concrete compressive strength and ductility in the diagonal compression strut mechanism.
Otani et al. (1986) reported three half-scale beam-column sub-assemblage tests. Beams were
200x300 mm, and were reinforced with 12-D10 bars (tensile reinforcement ratio pt =1.59%, yield
y =333 MPa) at the top and 6-D10 bars ( pt =0.79%). Columns were 300x300 mm, and
reinforced with 16-D13 bars ( y =439 MPa). The amount of lateral reinforcement was varied in the
three specimens; 2-D6 bars (lateral reinforcement ratio pw =0.27%, y =337 MPa) in Specimen C1,
stress
4-D6 ( pw =0.90%) and 4-D10 bars ( pw =2.01%) in Specimen C3. The concrete strength was 26.6
100.0
-50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
Story Drift, mm
The story shear is compared with diagonal deformation of a joint panel. The diagonal deformation
was measured over a gauge length of 333 and 310 mm for specimens C1 and C3, respectively. Little
shear distortion of a joint panel was observed in two specimens up to a story drift angle of 1/46 rad.
Specimen C1 started to increase the width of shear cracks at a story drift angle of 1/46 rad, while
specimen C3 did not increase the diagonal deformation even at a story drift angle 1/15 rad. Observe
that the amount of joint lateral reinforcement little affected the shear distortion for a deflection range
expected from an intense earthquake motion. Beyond such deflection level, the lateral reinforcement
started to show the difference in confining the joint core concrete.
Vc2
The
bond
deterioration of beam
Bond stress
bars within a joint is said
Cs2
Ts1
to
be
undesirable
because (a) the energy
dissipation at beam ends
Rotation due to bar slip
is reduced by pinching in
(Bertero and Popov 1977)
a hysteresis shape, (b)
the
diagonal
compressive stresses increase with a change in the joint shear transfer mechanism after beam
Story shear, tf
Strain, %
Column
Story drift, mm
Strain, %
Story shear, tf
Column
Story drift, mm
Strain,%
(b) Specimen with large column width/bar diameter ratio (low yield stress bars)
Story drift, mm
Column
Strain distribution in beam bars
(c) Specimen with large column width/bar diameter ratio (high yield stress bars)
Transverse Beams: Joint shear failure accompanies the increase in the volume of the connection.
To the extent that transverse beams can restrain this volume increase, the transverse beams are
expected to enhance the joint shear resistance.
Story drift
Stroy drift angle, rad
Effect of transverse beams on joint strength
Kitayama et al., 1989
Effect of column axial force on energy dissipation (Kitayama, Otani and Aoyama, 1987)
of column axial stress level. Therefore,. it is considered that column axial stress smaller than 0.3 fc
does not exhibit beneficial effect on the bond resistance along the beam bar within a joint.
Column axial stress level is compared with the maximum joint shear stress normalized by concrete
compressive strength for plane beam-column joint specimens, failed in joint shear. These specimens
were tested in Japan and U.S. Column axial load does not seem to influence the joint shear strength.
High axial compression load in a column, however, accelerates the strength decay in the diagonal
compression failure of the joint core concrete after beam flexural yielding.
Joh, O., et al., Influence of Transverse Joint and Beam Reinforcement and Relocation of Plastic
Hinge Region on Beam-column Joint Stiffness Deterioration, ACI-SP123, Design of Beam-column
Joints for Seismic Resistance, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1991, pp. 187 - 223.
Kitayama, K., S. Otani and H. Aoyama, Development of Design Criteria for RC Interior Beam-column
Joints, ACI-SP123, Design of Beam-column Joints for Seismic Resistance, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1991, pp. 97 - 123.
Kurose, Y., Recent Studies on Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joints in Japan, Report 87-8, Phil
M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Texas at Austin, Texas, 1987.
Liande, Z., and J. O. Jirsa, A Study of Shear Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints,
Report No. 82-1, P. M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, February 1982.
Meinheit, D. F., and J. O. Jirsa, Shear Strength of R. C. Beam-column Connections, Journal,
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. 11, November 1981, pp. 2227 -2244.
Noguchi, H. and Kurusu, Experimental Study on Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete
Beam-column Connections (in Japanese), Report C-II, Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of
Japan, Kyusyu, October 1997, pp. 627 - 628.
Otani, S., The Architectural Institute of Japan Proposal of Ultimate Strength Design Requirements for
RC Buildings with emphasis on Beam-column Joints, ACI-SP123, Design of Beam-column Joints
for Seismic Resistance, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1991, pp. 125 - 144.
Pantazopoulou, S., and J. Bonacci, Consideration of Questions about Beam-column Joints,
Structural Journal, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 89, No. 1, January-February 1992, pp. 27 36.
Paulay, T., Equilibrium Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints, Journal, Structural
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp. 635 - 643.
Paulay, T., and R. Park, Joints in Reinforced Concrete Frames Designed for Earthquake
Resistance, Research Report 84-9, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Paulay, T., et al., Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints under Seismic Actions, Journal,
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 75, No. 11. November 1978, pp. 585 - 593.
Uzumeri, S. M., Strength and Ductility of Cast in Place Beam Column Joints, ACI-SP53, Reinforced
Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, 1977, pp.
293 - 350.
Sugano, S., et al., Behavior of Beam-column Joints using High-strength Materials, ACI-SP123,
Design of Beam-column Joints for Seismic Resistance, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
Michigan, 1991, pp. 359 - 377.
Zhang, S., and J. O. Jirsa, A Study of shear Behavior of Reinforced concrete Beam-column Joints,
Report No. 82-1, P. M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1982.
Zhu, S., and J. O. Jirsa, A Study of Bond Deterioration in Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joints,
Report No. 83-1, P. M. Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 1983.
displacement can develop along the flexural cracks. The process of this sliding shear mechanism is
described by Paulay (1981). In the first cycle, involving large flexural yielding, the major part of the
shear force at the base of a cantilever squat wall is transmitted across the flexural compression zone.
This compression zone is small due to light axial load in the low-rise wall. Upon load reversal, cracks
develop across the previous flexural compression zone, while bars are subjected to compressive
stresses. Until the base moment reaches a level sufficient to yield these bars, in compression, a
continuous wide crack develop along the base. The shear must be resisted by dowel action of the
vertical reinforcement. Because of the relatively flexible nature of this mechanism, large sliding
displacement takes place until yielding of the compression steel occurs, closing the crack at the
compression end. With subsequent inelastic load reversals, further deterioration of the shear friction
mechanism along the planes of potential sliding develops. Due to a deterioration of the bond transfer
along the vertical bars and due to the Bauschinger effect, the stiffness of the dowel shear mechanism
also reduces. Eventually the principal mode of shear transfer along the base is by kinking of the
vertical bars.
Deformation: Lateral deformation of a member is often divided into flexural and shear deformation,
similar to elastic problem. However, the two deformation cannot be clearly separated after cracking;
e.g., a diagonal crack developed by shear stress causes rotational deformation.
Flexural deformation can be evaluated by integrating rotational deformation along a member.
Therefore, shear deformation is often defined as the difference of the total deformation and flexural
deformation.
Testing of a structural wall in a laboratory is difficult because the resistance is large. Most
laboratory test data have been obtained for single-story single-span walls to study shear
characteristics.
Shear Stress-deformation Relation: A typical average shear stress-shear deformation relation
shows stiffness reduction at the formation of large inclined crack along the main diagonal; and further
stiffness reduction with opening of the main diagonal crack and formation of additional inclined cracks.
The structural wall fails when the main diagonal crack penetrates through the boundary columns,
leading either shear compression failure in the compression zone of the wall panel and the boundary
column or sliding failure along a horizontal plane of the wall panel accompanied by shear failure of the
boundary columns. The average shear stress may be calculated for the area defined by
center-to-center distance of the boundary columns and thickness of the wall.
Shear Cracking: A diagonal shear crack may be assumed to develop when the principal tensile
stress of section reaches the tensile strength of concrete in the elastic analysis.
Shear stress reported in a structural wall test does not agree with the result from the elastic theory
by the following reason;
(a) the stress-strain relationship of concrete is not linearly elastic before the formation of a crack,
(b) shrinkage stress exists in a reinforced concrete member before the test,
(c) flexural crack may form prior to shear crack, and
(d) a crack is normally reported after it becomes visible.
Sugano (1970) developed an
empirical formula to estimate average
shear stress at shear cracking for wall
test data using shear-type loading:
cr = ( 4.3 p g + 0.051) B
cr * may be modified to
cr * = ( cr 2 + o cr )1 / 2
Deformation at shear cracking may be calculated on the basis of the elastic theory using shear
modulus Gc
Gc =
Ec
2(1 + )
where Ec: elastic (Young's) modulus of concrete, : Poisson's ratio (approximately 1/6 for concrete).
Secant modulus is normally used for the elastic modulus of concrete.
Shear deformation (angle)
is given as
c
Gc
where : shape factor for shear deformation. The shape factor may be obtained by equating the
external work done by external shear V and the internal work done by shear stress obtained by the
elastic theory. The shear angle is defined as lateral deformation at wall centerline divided by the wall
height.
Hysteresis Behavior: The hysteresis shape of reinforced concrete structural walls, which behavior is
dominated by flexure, can be stable and fat (Paulay and Spurr, 1977).
Reinforced concrete members can be relatively ductile in shear during monotonic loading, but they
generally do not develop suitable performance under inelastic load reversals. The hysteresis shape
exhibits pinching phenomenon. The shear resistance can be attained only when the subsequent
largest displacement is attained and the stiffness decreases with displacement amplitudes. Note that
the envelope curve of the hysteresis curves follows closely the load-displacement curve under
monotonically increasing displacement. Inelastic tensile strains in lateral reinforcement cannot
recovered at complete unloading and accumulates with reversed loading. Special reinforcement to
The lateral load-displacement relation of the three specimens is compared. The three specimens
developed yielding behavior by the formation of a yield mechanism of the system. A steep stiffness
upon unloading and small residual displacement at complete unloading was observed. After the
unloading was completed, the high stiffness was recovered during the reloading. Small energy was
dissipated by the specimen with shear failing girders; energy dissipation of the system was controlled
by the frame. The uplifting of the wall commenced at a story drift as small as 1/400. Shear input to the
wall was limited by the uplifting and the damage in the wall was relatively small compared with a wall
with the fixed base.
References:
Bertero, V.V., E. P. Popov, T. Y. Wang, and J. Vallenas, Seismic Design Implication of Hysteretic
Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, Proceedings, Sixth World Conference on
E. Hognestad (1951)
o + y z
Local
bond
stresses
between
the
reinforcement and concrete and local bar slips
relative to the surrounding concrete exist near
tension cracks. Therefore, the Bernoullis
assumption is not valid, in the exact sense, near a
crack, shifting the neutral axis away from the
geometrical centroid. The curvature also varies
along a member with the varying depth of the
neutral axis. However, it is believed that the
assumption holds on the average over a finite
region. Slip between concrete and reinforcing
steel may be ignored if deformed bars are used as
2
Strain
y
( y, z )
o z y
z
o
z
Section
Strain
( y, z ) = 0 y z + z y
where, 0 : normal strain at the geometrical centroid of section, y , z : curvature about the
x ( y, z ) at coordinate
N ( x) =
= f ( )
Strain
Stress-strain relation of material
x ( y, z ) dA
Cross Sectional
M z ( x) =
Stress
Area
x ( y, z ) y dA
x ( y, z ) z dA
M y ( x) =
M y ( x)
S R ( x) = M z ( x)
N ( x)
It is important to note that all structural members are represented by line elements at the
geometric centroid section in the frame analysis; i.e., moment of a member in the structural analysis
and bending moment resistance of the section must be calculated about the common axis.
Moment-Curvature Relation under Monotonically Increasing Load: Uni-axial moment-curvature
relationship of section under a constant axial load N is calculated for a given curvature z rather
than for a given moment M z . Calculation of moment for a given curvature requires an iterative
procedure because the strain at the center of the section is not known.
The following procedure is normally taken to evaluate moment M z of a section under existing
axial load N and a given curvature
(a) Assume strain
z ;
cent at the center of the section; which enables us to define strain profile
( y ) = cent y
in which ( y ) : strain at distance y from the section center.
(b) Determine stress profile across the section on the basis of stress-strain relation of materials;
( y ) = ( ( y ))
(c) Resultant axial force N cal is estimated by integrating normal stress over the section;
N cal =
( y ) dA
(d) This resultant axial force must be equal to the existing axial load of the section if the choice of
the assumed strain o at the center is correct. Trial and error method with interpolation is used to
iterate steps (a) to (c) until the resultant axial load becomes practically equal to the existing axial load.
(e) Bending moment M z is calculated for the correctly assumed strain at the center of the
section;
Mz =
( y ) y dA
Stress-strain Relation of Concrete: Various stress-strain relations have been used in the flexural
analysis of reinforced concrete section.
Kent and Park (1971), for example, used the following expression for concrete stress-strain
relation under monotonically increasing compression load;
c c 2
( ) ]
for c o
o o
c = o [1 Z ( c o )]
for c > o
but c 0.2 o
where c : concrete stress, o : compressive
strength (MPa) of concrete, c : concrete strain,
o : strain at compressive strength of concrete
c = o [2
c
o
Unconfined
Confined
0.5 o
50h
0.2 o
c
o = 0.002 50u
50c
20
Z=
0.5
50u + 50 h o
50u =
0.021 + 0.002 o
o + 6.89
3
4
50 h = ( ) p s
b"
sh
s = Es s
s sy
s = sy
sy s sh
s = sy + Esh ( s sh )
sh s
y , sh : strains
Yielding
Bending Moment
Ultimate
Cracking
Curvature
EcIe
Moment-curvature relation
Significant stiffness change occurs at the tensile yielding of longitudinal reinforcement, and very
small increase in resistance takes place after flexural yielding.
In design, the concrete compressive strain at the ultimate stage is normally used as 0.003 to 0.004.
However, this ultimate strain is not intended for use in evaluating ultimate deformation (curvature,
rotation nor deflection), but is used to estimate the ultimate moment, which is not affected by the
amplitude of ultimate strain. The concrete strain at the flexural failure is believed to be much larger
especially when the concrete is properly confined by lateral reinforcement.
Axial Force
Compression
Failure
Balance
Point
y =0.00167
Concrete strength B =20.6 N/mm2
(C20)
Case studies:
y =0.00114
- Case 4: Concrete strength was increased to 31 N/mm2 (C31).
- Case 5: Width was reduced to 200 mm.
- Case 6: Effective depth was reduced to 400 mm.
- Case 7: Concrete cover depth was increased to 100 mm.
kd , mm
Standard
217
Case 1
268
Case 2
235
Case 3
217
Case 4
217
Case 5
274
Case 6
147
Case 7
213
y , x10-6/mm
3.13
3.46
3.24
2.15
3.13
3.51
6.58
3.11
M y , kN-m
335
625
331
230
335
330
172
326
I cr , x105 mm4
7.81
13.2
7.44
7.81
7.81
6.85
1.92
7.66
c max / B
sc / y
0.45
0.62
0.51
0.31
0.30
0.64
0.64
0.44
0.31
0.45
---
0.36
0.31
0.47
0.38
0.21
y : curvature at yielding;
M y : yield moment;
I cr : moment of inertia of cracked transformed section.
8
c , mm
u , x10-6/mm
Standard
63.6
47.2
Case 1
116
25.9
Case 2
82.7
36.2
Case 3
52.9
56.7
Case 4
53.2
56.4
Case 5
88.2
34.0
Case 6
63.6
47.2
Case 7
91.3
32.9
M u , kN-m
353
690
352
249
358
348
180
353
st / y
19.4
9.85
14.0
34.5
23.5
13.5
9.53
13.0
sc / y
0.39
1.02
----
0.14
0.11
0.78
0.39
-0.2
u : curvature at yielding;
M u : yield moment.
M
N
Section
Strain
Stress
Resultants
Lamina model
Park, Kent and Sampson (1972) analyzed a rectangular girder section under moment reversals.
Stress-strain relations of concrete and reinforcing steel are modeled from the observed behavior in
the laboratory. The amount of top and bottom reinforcement is quite different in the section.
Loading part of stress-strain relation of reinforcing bars is represented by modified
Ramberg-Osgood Model (1943):
s si = (1 + s
Es
ch
ch = sy {
r 1
0.744
0.71
+ 0.2411}
ln(1 + 1000 ip ) 1 e1000 ip
4.49
6.03
n
+ 0.297
ln(1 + n ) ( e 1)
2.20
0.469
r=
n
+ 3.04
ln(1 + n ) ( e 1)
r=
where
for odd n
for even n
s : steel strain, si : steel strain at zero stress, s : steel stress, Es: elastic modulus of steel,
10
ch : stress dependent on the yield strength and plastic strain in the steel produced in the previous
loading run, and : parameter of the Ramberg-Osgood Model, ip : plastic strain in steel produced
in previous loading run, n: number of post yield loading runs with n = 0 for the first yielding. Unloading
stiffness was taken equal to the initial elastic stiffness.
The stress-strain curve for concrete is represented by a parabola for ascending portion and
straight line for descending portion for monotonically increasing strain (Kent and Park, 1971). A linear
stress-strain curve for concrete in tension may be assumed to the tensile strength. The curve under
cyclic loading is represented by straight lines. Upon unloading from point E on the skeleton curve,
0.75 of the previous stress is lost without decrease in strain, whereupon a linear path of slope 0.25 Ec
is followed to point G. If the concrete has not cracked, it is capable of carrying tensile stress to point
K; but if the concrete has previously cracked, or if cracks form during this loading stage, the tensile
strains increase but no tensile stress develops. Upon reloading, the strain must regain the value at G
before compressive stress can be sustained again. If reloading commences before unloading
produces zero compressive stress, reloading follows one of the paths IJ. The average slope of the
assumed loop between E and G is parallel to the initial tangent modulus.
The stress-strain curve for the cover concrete in compression may be assumed to follow the curve
for the confined core concrete at strains less than 0.004. The cover concrete at strains greater than
0.004 may be considered to have spalled and to have zero strength.
An iterative technique may be used to calculate the depth of the neutral axis at each loading
stage.
Doubly reinforced concrete beams had a rectangular section of 125 x 203 mm, and simply support
span of 1830 mm. Strains were measured on the top and bottom reinforcement over a 51 mm gauge
length in the critical region and the curvature was calculated from the strain measurement.
The comparison of the observed and the calculated was reasonably good. Note that the observed
curvature history was given to the analysis model and that the resistance after yielding is limited by
yield moment. Therefore, the behavior prior to yielding needs be carefully examined. The calculated
hysteresis loops before flexural yielding were fat compared with the observed. General behavior
during crack opening and closing was simulated well. When the cracks were open in the theoretical
curves, the moment is carried by a steel couple alone.
11
The filament model was used in the analysis of section and members under bi-directional
bending; i.e., Monegotto and Pinto (1973), Aktan et al. (1974), and Zeris and Mahin (1988).
References:
Agrawal, G. L., L. G. Tulin and K. H. Gerstle, Response of Doubly Reinforced Concrete Beams to
Cyclic Loading, Journal, American concrete Institute, Vol. 62, No. 7, July 1965, pp. 823 - 836.
Aktan, A. E., et al., R/C Column Earthquake Response in Two Dimensions, Journal, Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. ST10, October 1974, pp. 1999 - 2015.
Aoyama, H., Moment-Curvature Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Members subjected to Axial
Load and Reversal of Bending, Proceedings, International Symposium on the Flexural
Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, ASCE-ACI, Miami, November 1964, pp. 183 - 212.
Bertero, V. V., and B. Bresler, Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures,
Proceedings, Fourth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, Session B-2, Chile,
1969, pp. 109 - 124.
Brown, R. H., and J. O. Jirsa, Reinforced Concrete Beams under Reversed Loading, Journal,
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 68, No. 5, May 1971, pp. 380 - 390.
CEB, RC Elements under Cyclic Loading, Bulletin dInformation 210, Thomas Telford, London,
1991.
Fujii, S., H. Aoyama and H. Umemura, Moment-curvature Relation Calculated on the Basis of
Material Properties (in Japanese), Report (Structural Engineering), Annual Meeting, Architectural
Institute of Japan, October 1973, pp. 1261 - 1262.
Kent, D. C., and R. Park, "Flexural Members with Confined Concrete," Journal, Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 97, ST7. pp. 1969-1990, July 1971.
Menegotto, M., and P. E. Pinto, Method of Analysis for Cyclically Loaded RC Plane Frames including
Changes in Geometry and Non-elastic Behavior of Elements under Combined Normal force and
Bending, Preliminary Report, IABSE, Vol. 13, 1973, pp. 15 - 22.
Park, R., D. C. Kent and R. A. Sampson, "Reinforced Concrete Members with Cyclic Loading,"
Journal, Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, ST 7, pp. 1341-1360, July 1972.
Ramberg, W. and W. R. Osgood, "Description of Stress-Strain Curves by Three Parameters,"
Technical Note No. 902, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, July 1943.
Zeris, C., and S. A. Mahin, Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam-columns under uniaxial
excitation, Journal, Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. ST4, April 1988, pp. 804 - 820.
12
AB = ( x) dx
xA
where ( x) : curvature at x. The relative rotation is defined as the angle between their planes of
cross section or the corresponding tangents to the member axis.
The chord rotation is the angle between the
chord connecting the member axis and the tangent
to the member axis; for member AB, chord rotations
A and B are
x x
A = ( x) B
dx
xA
xB x A
B
A
xB
xB
B = ( x)
xA
AB
xA x
dx
xB x A
AB = A B
AB , therefore, is expressed as
The deflection of point A from the tangent to the member axis at point B due to curvature between
the two points is calculated by
xB
AB = x ( x) dx
xA
13
e = d x1 + d x 2
A = z1 + ( d y 1 d y 2 ) / L
B = z 2 + ( d y1 d y 2 ) / L
in a matrix form;
e 1
A = 0
B
0
0
1
L
1
L
0 d x 1 1 0
1
1 d y 1 + 0
L
z1
0 1
0
L
0 d x 2
0 d y 2
z2
0
It is often convenient to study the deformation relation of simply supported beams under mid-point
loading and anti-symmetric loading. The loading cases will cause triangular bending moment
distribution in one-half member, but maximum moment at member end under anti-symmetric bending
and maximum moment at the mid-span in mid-point loading. The chord rotation A of the
anti-symmetric loading beam is defined as the angle between the tangent at the end and the straight
line connecting two member ends, which is the ratio of deflection at the mid-span measured from
the tangent line divided by one-half member length l / 2 . The same angle can be obtained in the
mid-span loading beam by dividing the deflection at mid-span by one-half member length.
mA
P
mB = mA
mA
A
A = RAB
B = A
RAB = /(l / 2)
14
Simply
Supported
Beams:
Consider a simply supported straight
member i subjected to member end
moments mA and mB at the two ends
A and B. No intermediate loads act
within
the
member.
Moment
distribution within the member can
be determined from the member end
forces mA and mB; curvature (x)
at point x along the member can be
determined for the existing bending
moment m(x) at the point on the
basis of moment-curvature relation.
Member-end rotations A and B
may be calculated by using the
dummy (unit) load method; bending
moment muj(x) due to unit moment mj
= 1.0 (j= A or B) applied at j-end,
then member-end rotation j is
m( x )
mA
mB
( x)
x
Member-end Moment and Member-end Rotation
calculated as
L
j = ( x) muj ( x) dx
0
In other words,
L
x
A = ( x) (1 )dx
L
0
L
m( x)
mA
x
L
B = ( x)( )dx
0
mB
( x)
x
mB = 1.0
e = ( x)dx
0
mA =
6Ec I e
A
L
Yielding
Ultimate
mA
yS
Cracking
S=
mB = mA
6EI
l
Rotation,
mcr = c t Z e +
where
ND
6
(positive in compression), D : overall depth of section. Sugano (1970) evaluated the tensile strength
of concrete in test specimens from observed cracking moments and section modulus of concrete. A
wide scatter can be observed in data, partially attributable to shrinkage strain, partially to late noticing
the cracking in a specimen during the test.
c
( kgf / cm 2 )
(kgf / cm2 )
my
my
mu
mc
my
mc
u
u
mc
c
c
First Yieldng
mu
mc
my
c
Ultimate Stage
Yield Deformation: The member-end rotation at flexural yielding calculated from curvature
distribution is known to underestimate the yield rotation observed in the test because the analysis
does not consider (a) shear deformation, (b) deformation caused by bar slip within anchorage zone,
and because the Bernoulli's hypothesis holds only in an approximate sense. Therefore, an empirical
expression y was formulated for the ratio of secant stiffness at yielding to the initial stiffness
(Sugano, 1970):
a
N
d
+ 0.33
}( ) 2
D
bD B D
B :
compressive strength of
concrete, d: effective depth of section,
D : overall depth of section.
The expression is applicable for
the following range of parameters:
p t = 0.4 to 2.8 %, a / D = 2.0 to 5.0,
N / b D B = 0.0 to 0.55.
Beams
Observed
Columns
Although the stiffness degradation
ratio has been used in the nonlinear
earthquake analysis of buildings
under design in Japan, the yield
D
stiffness is determined with respect
Calculated y ( )2
d
to the initial stiffness, which cannot
Calculated
and
Observed
Stiffness Reduction Factor at Yielding
be determined with accuracy; e.g.,
Sugano,
1970
note the reliability of an expression
for the elastic modulus Ec of
concrete.
Another simplifying method to estimate a
member end rotation at yielding of
anti-symmetrically loaded member is to
assume a triangular distribution of curvature
with a calculated yield curvature at a
member end and null curvature at the
inflection point. This sometimes gives a
reasonable value. This method sometimes
underestimate the deformation for a short
deep beam.
my
my
p = (u y ) l p
z
l p = 0.8 k1 k2 c
d
where k1 =0.7 for mild steel and 0.9 for cold-worked steel,
k2 =0.6 for f c ' =35 MPa and 0.9 for f c ' =12 MPa, z :
distance of critical section to the inflection point, d :
effective depth of section, c : neutral axis depth at the
lp
ultimate moment with ultimate strain of concrete given in the following form;
d
c
s : ratio of the volume of the transverse confining reinforcement to the volume of the core
concrete. Concrete stress-strain relation is a parabola for ascending region and a constant value to
ultimate strain. The maximum concrete stress f c " is given by
d
f c " = (0.8 + 0.1 ) f c ' f c '
c
The test results show a significant scatter, but Baker claims that the expression furnishes a
reasonable safe prediction.
Corley (1964) proposed the following expressions for the equivalent plastic hinge length l p and
the maximum concrete strain
z
l p = 0.5d + 0.2 d
d
2
b f
cu = 0.003 + 0.02 + s y
z 20
where z : distance of critical section to the inflection point, b : width of beam in inches (=25.4 mm),
d : effective depth of section, s : ratio of the volume of the transverse confining reinforcement and
compressive longitudinal bars to the volume of the core concrete, f y : yield strength of confining
steel in kips (=6.89 MPa)
References:
Baker, A. L., and A. M. N. Amarakone, Inelastic Hyperstatic Frame Analysis, Proceedings,
International Symposium on the Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, ASCE-ACI, Miami,
November 1964, pp. 85 - 142.
Corley, G. W., Rotational Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams, Journal, Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 92, No. ST5, October 1964, pp. 121 - 146,
Sugano, S, "Experimental Study on Restoring Force Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete
Members (in Japanese)," Thesis submitted to fulfill the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy,
University of Tokyo, March 1970.
18
The load-deformation relation curves under reversed cyclic loading were obtained from the generous
researchers, and were digitized at the University of Tokyo for the sequence of parts where the load
exceeded the maximum load of the previous loading cycles. The error of digitization is less than 0.3
percent, on the average 0.2 percent, of the full scale.
Moment-Rotation Relation: The
member-end moment was obtained
from shear force measured in the test
span by assuming the inflection point
at the mid-span. The member-end
rotation of Type A specimens was
calculated from the measured relative
lateral displacement divided by the
clear span, but the member end
rotation of Type B specimens was
used as the researchers reported.
The observed moment-rotation curve
was idealized into a trilinear
relationship (Fig. 2).
Although many specimens failed in
shear or bond-splitting modes after
flexural yielding, the initial stiffness
may not be affected by the failure modes. Therefore, all 105 specimens were used in the study of
initial stiffness and flexural cracking moment. On the other hand, the yield deflection is increased by
the damage associated with the failure modes. Therefore, those specimens failing in shear or
bond-splitting modes within a deflection equal to three times flexural yielding deflection were
excluded from the examination of yield and ultimate points; 38 specimens were used to study the
yield deflection.
The initial stiffness in a test was defined as a secant slope at a load equal to one-half of the reported
cracking load. The cracking load was not reported in five specimens; hence the cracking moment was
evaluated by assuming the tensile strength of concrete to be 0. 56 B (Ref. 23). Note that the
cracking load is normally reported at a loading step when cracking is detected for the first time; i.e.,
the reported cracking load is normally higher than the actual cracking load. Therefore, the cracking
point was determined from the shape of force-deformation relation by the method described in the
following paragraph.
The stiffness of reinforced concrete section changes drastically at the yielding of tensile
reinforcement. If tensile reinforcement is placed in double layers in the section, the stiffness changes
at the yielding of the outer layer reinforcement and then of the inner layer reinforcement. In order to
select a single yield point, the yield point and cracking moment were defined such that the energy
stored at the ultimate deformation should be the same for the test and the model making the absolute
difference in the energy to be minimum (Fig. 2).
Resistance at the ultimate point was taken as the observed maximum resistance. The determination
of an ultimate deformation is an important but impossible issue; the ultimate deformation is not a
unique value but is highly dependent on the progress of concrete deterioration dictated by loading
history and failure modes. Small stiffness after yielding will not change appreciably by the choice of
an ultimate deformation. Therefore, the ultimate deformation was selected to be an arbitrary
deformation at a deformation ductility factor of four.
An iterative procedure was used to define the yield point and cracking moment for the established
initial stiffness and ultimate point.; i.e., (a) a trial yield displacement was assumed, (b) an ultimate
displacement was selected at four times yield deformation, (c) post-yield stiffness was determined by
connecting the ultimate point and a point on the observed curve at 2.5 times yield deformation, and
(d) the cracking moment and yield deformation were determined for equal absorbed energy at the
ultimate deformation and minimum absolute difference.
Initial Elastic Stiffness: The methods to evaluate stiffness parameters and their reliability with
respect to the observed values are discussed. The initial elastic stiffness K E was evaluated by the
elastic theory of a lineal member considering flexural and shear deformation;
1
1
1
=
+
KE KB KS
(Eq. 1)
where K B : flexural stiffness (= 6 Ec Ie / L), K S : shear stiffness (= Gc A L/ 2), Ec: elastic modulus of
concrete, Ie: moment of inertia of uncracked transformed section, L: member length, Gc: shear
modulus of concrete, A: cross sectional area, :shape factor for shear deformation (=1.2). The
shear modulus of concrete was estimated from the elastic modulus Ec and assumed Poisson's ratio
of 0.20. Elastic modulus Es of steel was assumed to be 206 GPa.
The initial stiffness was calculated using the observed elastic modulus of concrete and the clear span.
The observed initial stiffness (Fig. 3) was notably low and, on the average, 0.53 times that calculated
with a large coefficient of variation (=0.51) for 73 specimens with reported concrete elastic moduli.
The large coefficient of variation and discrepancy between the test and calculation was probably
attributed to (a) technical difficulty in measuring accurate initial stiffness in the test and (b) formation
of accidental and shrinkage cracks prior to the test. In a real structure, flexural cracks under gravity
20
cr = 1. 26 B 0.45
(Eq. 3)
The cracking tensile strength should not be used as the tensile strength of concrete, but is intended to
evaluate a moment level at which the initial elastic stiffness of the trilinear idealization changes in the
member-end moment-rotation relationship.
Yield Moment and Rotation: Yield moment at the critical section was calculated for the yielding at an
imaginary centroid of tensile reinforcement. The amount of tensile reinforcement is normally limited
well below the balanced tensile reinforcement ratio; hence, the stress-strain relation of the concrete
was assumed to remain linearly elastic when the tensile reinforcement first yielded under bending. In
addition, the following assumptions were made in calculating yield moment; i.e., (a) plane section
remained plane after deformation, and (b) the concrete in tension did not resist tensile stresses. The
elastic modulus of concrete was determined by Eq. 2 with k1=k2=1.0 and =2.4 ton/m3, while the
compressive strength of concrete and the yield stress of reinforcement were obtained from the
reported material tests. In 2 specimens out of
38, the calculated stress at the extreme
compressive fiber exceeded the compressive
strength of concrete; these specimens were
removed from the study.
The calculated yield moment and the estimated
yield moment of the trilinear idealization are
compared in Fig. 7 for 36 specimens. The
average ratio of the estimated to the calculated
yield moment is 1.12 with a coefficient of
variation of 0.078; only one estimated yield
moment was smaller (0.94) than the calculated
value. The yield moment at which the stiffness
of an RC member changes drastically may be
calculated conservatively by the flexural
analysis.
22
Member end rotation at flexural yielding was calculated using cracked transformed section for flexural
deformation ( f = M y L / 6 Ec I cr ), elastic stiffness for shear deformation ( s = 2 M y / GAL ) and
pullout deformation
(Eq. 4)
deformation, slip due to the pull-out of longitudinal reinforcement from the anchorage zone. A
regression analysis with respect to the estimated yield rotation was carried out to determine
coefficients;
y = 115
. f + 12. 6 s + 3.89 slip
(Eq. 5)
The calculated yield deflection and the observed yield rotation of the trilinear idealization are
compared in Fig. 8.b for 36 specimens. A coefficient of variation of the ratio was 0.20 with a mean of
1.0.
Ultimate Moment: Flexural strength of beam section is not sensitive to the shape of stress-strain
relationship nor the compressive strength of concrete because the neutral axis depth is so small that
the distance between the resultant compressive and tensile forces cannot change appreciably within
the section. The ultimate moment was calculated using the plasticity theory suggested by Eberhard
23
and Sozen (Ref. 27), in which the flexural mechanism was assumed to form by the yielding of tensile
reinforcement followed by the compressive failure of concrete. Instead of strain compatibility,
equilibrium conditions for axial force and bending moment of section were used based on the lower
bound theorem. The maximum bending resistance was sought by satisfying the yield criteria of the
materials and is given by
M u = k B b d c + at y ( d d c )
2
(Eq. 6)
B : compressive strength of concrete, b: width of section, dc: distance from the extreme
compressive fiber to the centroid of compressive reinforcement, at: area of tensile reinforcement, y :
in which,
References:
1. Korenaga, T., T. Mogami, et al., "Test of structural members and frames in tall buildings utilizing the
R. C. layered construction system, Part 1: Test on short beams," Taisei Technical Research
Report, No. 18, March 1986, pp. 111-126.
2. Tanaka, N., N. Sakaguchi, et al., "Flexural and shear strength of short span beams using ultra high
strength reinforced concrete, (Part 1: Flexural behavior of beams, Part 2: Shear behavior of
beams)," Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan,
Structures, 1987, pp. 67 - 70.
3. Kobayashi, J., K. Kanada, S. Yoshizaki and T. Yamada, "Test of structural members and frames in
tall buildings utilizing the R. C. layered construction system, Part 4: Test of shear reinforcing
methods of beams," Taisei Technical Research Report, No. 18, 1987, pp. 73 - 88.
4. Taga, A., K. Kawasaki, et al., "Development of MAEDA high-rise reinforced concrete building
system (MARC system), (Part 4: Experimental study on structural members and
subassemblages)," Report of Technical Research Institute, Maeda Corporation, Vol. 29-2, 1988,
pp. 31 - 55.
5. Yanagisawa, N., Y. Shimizu, K. Tsumura and M. Fujiwara, "Strength and ductility of reinforced
concrete T-beam with high strength concrete," Proceedings, Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 10, No.
3, 1988, pp. 681 - 684.
6. Matsutani, T., J. Ishida, et al., "Experiments for development of high-rise reinforced concrete
structure," Technical Research Reports, Konoike Construction Co., Ltd., 1988, pp. 71 - 84.
7. Honda, Y., T. Iwakura, S. Hakuto and H. Maie, "Experimental study on RC beams with web
openings, ultimate shear strength and deformability of RC beams reinforced using ring materials
of high tensile strength steel," Technical Reports, Tokyu Construction, No. 15, 1989, pp. 67 - 72.
8. Sugano, S., T. Nagashima, H. Kimura and A. Ichikawa, "Experimental study on high strength
concrete beam using high strength main bar," Proceedings, Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 12, No.
2, 1990, pp. 215 - 220.
24
9. Taga, A., K. Kawasaki, T. Watanabe, and K. Tsujita, "Study on a seismic design of a high-rise
reinforced concrete building (Flexure-shear loading tests and shear loading tests on beams with
web openings)," Report of Technical Research Institute, Maeda Corporation, Vol. 30, 1990, pp.
131 - 144.
10. Nakamura, M., S. Bessho, T. Kato and A. Zan, "Bending-shear test of beams with high strength
concrete and rebars for high rised R/C building," Proceedings, Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 14,
No. 2, 1992, pp. 529 - 534.
11. Ishikawa, Y., M. Hamamoto, S. Otani and H. Aoyama, "Experimental study on deformation
capacity of reinforced concrete beams," Proceedings, Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 14, No. 2,
1992, pp. 255 - 260.
12. Kamura, T., T. Ohmizu, S. Otani and H. Aoyama, "Experimental study on deformation capacity of
reinforced concrete beams," Proceedings, Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1993, pp. 335
- 340.
13. Sumi, A., T. Segawa, et al., "An experimental study on flexural performance of reinforced concrete
beams using high tensile strength shear reinforcement," Summaries of Technical Papers of
Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Structures, 1984, pp. 1681 - 1682.
14. Muguruma, H., A. Sumi, T. Segawa and T. Hisatoku, "An experimental study of reinforced
concrete beams laterally confined by high strength reinforcement," Summaries of Technical
Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Structures, 1988, pp. 229 - 230.
15. Sumi, A., K. Masuo, et al., "An experimental study on flexural performance of short span RC
beams using high strength shear reinforcement," Proceedings of Architectural Research Meetings,
Kinki Chapter, Architectural Institute of Japan, 1992, pp. 73 - 76.
16. Muguruma, H., F. Watanabe, "Study on shear design of R/C ductile beams subjected to combined
bending and shear (Part 1, 2)," Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural
Institute of Japan, Structures 2-C, 1988, pp. 183 - 184.
17. Iwai, Y., Y. Kakita, F. Watanabe and H. Muguruma, "Study on shear design of RC ductile beams
subjected to combined bending and shear (Part 3)," Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual
Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Structures 2-C, 1990, pp. 305 - 306.
18. Minami, K., H. Kuramoto, N. Tsukamoto and A. Nakazawa, "Shear and bond strength behavior of
R/C beams with grade 13,000kgf/cm2 shear reinforcement under cyclic bending and shear,"
Proceedings, Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1990, pp. 221 - 226.
19. Fujisawa, M., T. Kaminosono, M. Takeuchi and H. Murakami, "Study on bond splitting failure of
beams after flexural yielding," Report of Structures Committee, New RC Project, Japan Institute of
Construction Engineering, March 1990, pp. 4-4-1 - 4-4-15.
20. Fujisawa, M., T. Kaminosono, M. Takeuchi and H. Murakami, "Study on ductility of high-strength
reinforced concrete beams," Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural
Institute of Japan, Structures, 1990, pp. 277 - 278.
21. Fujisawa, M., T. Kaminosono, et al., "Study on effect of slab on flexural performance of beams,"
Report of Structures Committee, New RC Project, Japan Institute of Construction Engineering,
March 1991, pp. 4-4-1 - 4-4-19.
22. Fujii, S., H. Fujitani, et al., " Study on bond splitting failure of beams after flexural yielding," Report
of Structures Committee, New RC Project, Japan Institute of Construction Engineering, March
1992, pp. 4-1-1 - 4-4-10.
23. Sugano, S., "Experimental study on restoring force characteristics of reinforced concrete
members (in Japanese)," a thesis submitted to the University of Tokyo for a partial fulfillment of the
requirements for doctor of engineering degree, University of Tokyo, December 1970.
24. Otani, S., "Hysteresis models of reinforced concrete for earthquake response analysis," Journal
(B), Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1981, pp. 125-159.
25. Tomosawa, F., T. Noguchi, and K. Onoyama, "Investigation on fundamental mechanical
properties of high-strength and super high strength concrete," Summaries of Technical Papers of
Annual Meeting of Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol. A, 1990, pp. 497-498.
26. Shima, H., L.-L. Chou, and H. Okamura, "Micro and macro models for bond in reinforced
concrete," Journal, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Series (B), Vol. 39, No. 2, 1987, pp.
133 - 194.
27. Eberhard, M. O., and M. A. Sozen, "Behavior-based Method to determine design shear in
earthquake-resistant walls," Journal, Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 2, February,
1993, pp. 619 - 640.
25
second moment of area of the gross concrete section, I cr : moment of inertia of cracked transformed
section. The contribution of longitudinal reinforcement can be neglected because the reinforcement
ratio is normally less than 0.1 % in a wall.
The elongation of the vertical bars within the foundation structure and slip due to high local bond
stresses along the development length will result in an apparent pull-out of such bars at the base of
the wall. This can significantly increase the wall deflection.
For cantilever walls with aspect ratios, hw / l w , larger than 4, the shear deformation may be
neglected. After diagonal cracking, however, the shear stiffness is reduced to 10 - 30 % of the
uncracked stiffness. The lateral reinforcement influences the shear deformation after diagonal
cracking.
When the aspect ratio is less than 4, the second moment of area for a structural wall may be
assumed that
Ie
1.2 + F
30 I
F= 2 e
hw bw l w
Iw =
(2)
In this expression, some allowance is made for shear distortions and deflections due to anchorage
(pull-out) deformation at the base of a wall.
The structural wall tests at Portland Cement Association were examined. The aspect ratio of the
specimens was 2.4. Cross sections were flanged (H-shape), barbell (with boundary columns) and
rectangular. Equation (1) tends to overestimate the initial stiffness.
For a cantilever wall, the wall may be represented by a straight line passing through the centroid
of the gross section..
Reference:
Paulay, T., The Design of Reinforced Concrete Ductile Shear Walls for Earthquake
Resistance, Research Report 81-1, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury,
New Zealand, February 1981, 72 pp.
26
Otani, S.
A simply supported beam was tested at two point loading. The cross section was 102 x 152 mm;
support distance was 2.60 m with each load point at 1.00 m from the support. The section was
reinforced singly by 2-D12 bars at the bottom (cover thickness of 15 mm). Concrete strength was
22.5 MPa; load at yielding of a D12 reinforcing bar was 37.1 kN. The beam was reinforced laterally by
6 bars at 100 mm spacing.
Assume concrete and reinforcing bars behave linearly elastic until flexural yielding. The concrete
in tension carries tensile stress before cracking (tensile strength of concrete is one-tenth of
compressive strength). Ignore the stress carried by tensile region of concrete after cracking. Use
rectangular stress block for concrete in calculating the moment and curvature at an ultimate state,
where a strain of concrete at the extreme compression fiber reaches a limiting value of 0.004 and
stress of tensile reinforcement reaches the yield stress.
Calculate (a) moment-curvature relation of section at cracking, flexural yielding and ultimate
stages, (b) load-deformation relation of the specimen on the basis of curvature distribution at cracking,
flexural yielding and ultimate stages at the loading point.
Compare the calculated and the observed load-deformation relation. The total load (kN) and
displacement (mm) at mid-span relation is shown below:
Total Load, kN
20.0
P
10.0
Deflection at mid-span, mm
10.0
20.0
27
30.0
Es = 210 GPa
d = 125 mm
Modulus ratio
n=
Es
= 8.55
Ec
I 0 = 3.35 105 m 4
Neutral axis from the extreme tensile fiber
xn = 80.9 mm
Cracking moment
M c = ct
Io
= 1061 Nm
( D xn )
Cracking curvature
c =
Mc
= 1.29 103 (1/ m)
Ec I 0
As
2.26 104
=
= 0.01776
t =
bd 0.102 0.125
Depth of neutral axis kd of cracked section
k = ( t n) 2 + 2 t n t n = 0.420
Yield moment
k
M y = 2 Py d (1 )
3
= 2 37.1 103 0.125 (1
0.420
)
3
= 7980 Nm
Moment of inertia of cracked section
b(kd )3
I cr =
+ nAs (1 k ) 2 d 2
3
0.102 (0.420 0.125)3
=
+ 8.55 2.26 104 (1 0.420) 2 0.1252
3
= 1.506 105 m 4
Yield curvature
28
y =
My
Ec I cr
= 0.0215 (1/ m)
0.85 f c' ab = As f y
As f y
a=
0.85 f c'b
37.1 2 103
= 0.038 m
0.85 22.5 106 0.102
Ultimate moment
a
M u = As f y (d )
2
= 37.1 103 2 (0.125
0.038
)
2
= 7870 Nm
Depth of neutral axis
c=
a
= 0.0447 m
0.85
Ultimate curvature
u =
0.004
= 0.0894 (1/ m)
c
29
Assignment No. 2
20020227
S. Otani
A cantilever reinforced concrete beam was tested under lateral load reversals. The shear span
(distance between loading point and the end of the beam specimen) was 750 mm. The section is
200x300 mm and is reinforced with 4-D13 bars (SD345, nominal area of a bar= 127 mm2, tensile
reinforcement ratio of 0.85%) at the top and bottom. The lateral reinforcement was 2- 4 plain bars
placed at 40 mm on centers (lateral reinforcement ratio of 0.32 %, nominal area of a bar=12.6 mm2).
The concrete cover to the center of the longitudinal reinforcement was 30 mm.
The standard tensile test shows that
the yield stress of Grade SD345 steel
was 361 N/mm2, and tensile strength
was 500 N/mm2. Yield stress of a plain
4 bar was 478 N/mm2 and the tensile
strength was 509 N/mm2. The
compressive strength of concrete was
28.2 N/mm2, tensile strength 2.50
N/mm2, and secant elastic modulus
28.6 GPa.
80
Resistance, kN
60
40
20
0
-30
-20
-10
-20 0
10
20
30
-40
-60
-80
Displacement, mm
Estimate the resistance and deformation under monotonically increasing loading at flexural
cracking, yielding and ultimate points from the given information and compare the calculated results
with the test results. The observed relation is enlarged below.
80
60
Resistance, kN
40
20
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
-20
-40
-60
-80
Displacement, mm
30
{a} = c{ f }
Law 3: When two particles A and B are in contact, the force applied to particle A by particle B, at
the contact point, is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction from the force applied to particle B
by particle A.
"Newton's second law of motion" expresses the motion of a particle under a given force history:
d2
{x} = c{ f }
dt 2
By solving the differential equation, the displacement {x} of the particle can be uniquely defined for
a given set of initial conditions.
D'Alembert's Principle: Newtons law of motion can be rewritten in the form:
{ f } = m{a}
=m
d2
{x}
dt 2
If a particle moves with an absolute acceleration of {a (t )} at time t , force { f (t )} must act on the
particle in the direction of the acceleration. The proportionality constant is called "mass of inertia."
A fictitious force commonly known as the "inertia force" was introduced by D'Alembert (Traite de
Dynamique, 1743) in order to express a state of dynamic equilibrium:
{ f '} = m
d2
{x}
dt 2
The equilibrium of (static) forces was extended to a dynamic problem by the introduction of an inertia
force:
{ f } + { f '} = {0}
x
k
m
d 2x
kx + f (t ) = 0
dt 2
d 2x
m 2 + kx = f (t )
dt
The solution x(t ) for a differential equation is the sum of a particular solution x p (t ) , which
satisfies the original equation at any time, and a complementary solution xc (t ) , which is a general
solution for the differential equation for the right hand side of the equation to be null (the state of free
vibration).
x ( t ) = x p (t ) + x c (t )
d2
x p (t ) + k x p (t ) = f (t )
dt 2
d2
m 2 x c (t ) + k x c (t ) = 0
dt
The particular solution x p (t ) must be found for a given forcing function f (t ) . The particular
m
solutions have been found for simple forcing functions f (t ) , but a general closed form solution is
not available.
The complementary solution xc (t ) can be found as follows;
x c (t ) = A cos n t + B sin n t
=
sin =
cos =
A2 + B 2 sin( n + )
A
A + B2
B
2
A2 + B 2
k
. A and B are integration constants dependent on the initial conditions. For given
m
initial displacement xo and velocity v o at t = 0 : the complementary solution is derived as
v
xc (t ) = xo cos n t + o sin n t
where
n =
n is
= 2
m
.
k
(x ) with the
y ( x, t ) = ( x )Y (t )
The kinetic energy T of the entire member under this oscillation is defined as;
L
T =
0
=
0
1
dy ( x, t ) 2
( x){
} dx
dt
2
dY (t ) 2
1
( x){ ( x)
} dx
dt
2
L
=
where,
dY (t ) 2
1
( x){ ( x)}2 dx {
}
dt
20
T=
1 * dY (t ) 2
M {
}
2
dt
where M*: equivalent lumped mass associated with the deformed shape. Therefore, the equivalent
mass is defined as
L
M = ( x ){ ( x )}2 dx
*
is a generalized
Consistent Mass: Mass coefficients corresponding to the nodal coordinates of a beam element may
be defined by a procedure similar to the determination of element stiffness coefficients; the mass
coefficient mij is the force at nodal coordinate i due to a unit acceleration at nodal coordinate j
while all other nodal coordinates are maintained at zero acceleration.
It is assumed that the deflection resulting from unit dynamic displacement d i = 1.0 at the nodal
coordinate i of a beam element is given by the consistent function
consideration.
p3
d3
p2
p5
d2
d5
p6
d6
p1
p4
d1
d4
1 ( x ) due to unit
x
L
1 ( x ) = 1 ( )
x
x
2 ( x) = 1 3( ) 2 + 2( ) 3
L
L
x
3 ( x) = x{1 ( )}2
L
x
4 ( x) = ( )
L
x
x
5 ( x) = 3( ) 2 2( ) 3
L
L
x
x
6 ( x) = x( ){( ) 1}
L L
1z
d1y
2z
d2y
d2x
d1x=1.0
for d1 y = 1.0
for 1z = 1.0
d1y=1.0
for d 2 x = 1.0
1z = 1.0
for d 2 y = 1.0
d2x=1.0
for 2 z = 1.0
d2y=1.0
f ji = m ji ai
For a virtual displacement
j at member
WE = m ji ai j
WI = ( x )aii ( x ) j j ( x )dx
0
= ai j ( x )i ( x ) j ( x )dx
0
Therefore,
L
mij = ( x )i ( x ) j ( x )dx
0
The consistent mass matrix associated with the member end acceleration is given (Ref. 1) by
0
0
70
0
0
p1 x
140
p
0
156
22 L
0
54
13L
1y
m1z L 0
22 L
4 L2
0
13L
3L2 d 2
=
p
0
0
140
0
0 dt 2
x
2
420 70
p2 y
0
54
13L
0
156 22 L
2
0 22 L 4 L2
m 2 z
0 13L 3L
d 1xx
d
1y
1z
d2x
d2 y
2z
The deflection shape function changes in an inelastic stage. It is normally difficult to evaluate the
distributed mass and the deflected shape consistent with member stiffness matrix. The member
mass matrix must be reformulated consistent with the stiffness matrix.
The lateral deflection shape functions for a member with a 1
rotational plastic hinge at the start end are given (Ref. 1) as
3 x
2 L
1 x
2 L
2 ( x) = 1 ( ) + ( ) 3
3 ( x) = 0
3 x
1 x
2 L 2 L
x
1
6 ( x) = x{( ) 2 1}
L
2
5 ( x) = ( ) ( ) 3
for d1 y = 1.0
for 1z = 1.0
for d 2 y = 1.0
for 2 z = 1.0
0
p1x
140
p
0
204
1y
m1z L 0
0
=
0
p 2 x 420 70
0
p2 y
58.5
0 16.5 L
m2 z
0
16.5 L
0 0
0
0 d2
0 140
0
0 dt 2
0 0
99
36 L
0 0 36 L
8 L2
0
0
70
0
0
58.5
d1x
d
1y
1z
d 2 x
d 2 y
2 z
2
1 x
3 x
for d1 y = 1.0
2 L 2 L
1 x
3 x
3 ( x ) = x x ( ) + x ( ) 2
for 1z = 1.0
2 L 2 L
1 x
3 x
5 ( x ) = ( ) 2 ( ) 3
for d 2 y = 1.0
2 L
2 L
6 ( x ) = 0
for 2 z = 1.0
2 ( x ) = 1 ( ) + ( ) 3
The consistent mass matrix associated with the member end acceleration is given (Paz, 1985) by
0
0
70
0
p1x
140
p
0
99
36 L
0
58.5
1y
2
0 16.5 L
m1z L 0 36 L 8 L
0
0
140
0
p 2 x 420 70
0 58.5 16.5 L 0
p2 y
204
m2 z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 d 2
0 dt 2
0
x
L
2 ( x) = 1 ( )
for
3 ( x) = 0
for 1z = 1.0
x
L
6 ( x) = 0
5 ( x) = ( )
for
d1x
d
1y
1z
d 2 x
d 2 y
2 z
1
d1 y = 1.0
d 2 y = 1.0
for 2 z = 1.0
The consistent mass matrix associated with the member end acceleration is given by
p1x
2 0 0
p
0 2 0
1y
m1z L 0 0 0
p 2 x 6 1 0 0
0 1 0
p2 y
m2 z
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0 d 2
2 0 0 dt 2
0 2 0
0 0 0
d1x
d
1y
1z
d 2 x
d 2 y
2 z
It should be noted that (a) the displacement functions due to unit member end displacement is not
the same as the deflected shape due to member end displacement and inertia force acting along the
member, (b) the stiffness distribution changes along a member in the nonlinear response due to the
progress in damage during an oscillation. Therefore, the deflected shape must be evaluated at each
instance during response analysis. The consistent mass is not constant with time, but is affected by
the stiffness (damage) distribution.
Lumped Mass: A simple method to consider the inertial properties for a dynamic system is to
assume that the mass of the structure is lumped at the nodal coordinates where translational
displacements are defined. The inertia effect associated with any rotational degree of freedom may
be assumed to be zero.
x
m A = {1 ( )} ( x)dx
L
0
L
x
m B = ( ) ( x)dx
L
0
The mass matrix may be formed by adding the contribution of lumped masses at the nodal
coordinates defined for translations.
A regular building structure oscillates in a horizontal direction under a horizontal earthquake
motion, causing horizontal inertia forces associated with the mass of floors and beams. The floor
diaphragm may be assumed to be rigid in its own plane in a cast-in-situ reinforced concrete building,
yielding the same horizontal displacement at a floor. Therefore, the mass of a building may be
assumed to concentrate at the floor level; the mass of inter-story structural and non-structural
elements may be included in the floor mass.
The total mass of a structure may be assumed to concentrate at the levels of the floors, and no
other mass may be ignored as the secondary effect. The mass matrix becomes diagonal with
non-zero elements only at the locations associated with horizontal floor displacements. For
horizontal inertia forces PXi at floor level i , the lumped mass matrix may be written as follows;
PX 1 M 1
P 0
X2
PX 3 0
=
M
M
PXn 1 0
PXn 0
M2
M3 L
M
0
M
0
O
M
L M n 1
0
0
0 d2
M dt 2
0
M n
DX1
D
X2
D X 3
M
D Xn 1
D Xn
where
d
{D X } : horizontal acceleration at floor level i , and M i : total mass of floor level i .
dt 2
Reference:
1. Mario Paz, Structural Dynamics, Theory & Computation, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Ltd.,
1985.
5.3 Damping
A mass-spring (oscillatory) system under free vibration does not oscillate forever, but the
amplitude of oscillation in a real system is known to diminish with time. In other words, kinetic energy
of motion must decrease with time indicating there exists an energy dissipating mechanism in a real
oscillatory system. Such a mechanism of energy dissipation is vaguely termed as "damping."
"Damping" is a mechanism to dissipate kinetic energy; some mechanisms have been suggested
for damping such as;
(a) inelastic hysteresis energy dissipation,
(b) radiation of kinematic energy through foundation,
(c) kinetic friction,
(d) viscosity in materials, or
(e) aerodynamic effect.
Unfortunately, the state-of-the-art cannot define the characteristics of damping on the basis of
material properties and geometrical configuration of a structure.
"Because damping mechanism is not clearly understood, we may use a crude model to represent
the energy dissipating feature."
Looking at the equation of motion, there is not a linear term associated with velocity. Therefore, it
is mathematically convenient and beautiful to introduce a velocity related term; i.e., a resistance
proportional to velocity called "viscous damping":
d 2x
dx
+ c + kx = f (t )
2
dt
dt
xc = C1 e p1t + C 2 e p2t
where
p1, 2 =
c c 2 4mk
2m
c cr 4mk = 0
c cr = 2 mk
for which damping is so large that the oscillation will not be developed. In a normal structural system,
damping coefficient is much smaller than the critical value.
Ratio of a damping coefficient c of a system to the critical damping coefficient c cr is called a
damping factor (or ratio) h;
h=
c
2 mk
The value of a damping factor is normally determined by dynamic tests of a structure rather than
calculated from the material properties and geometry of the structure. Damping capacity is often
determined by the bandwidth at the half power level of the response curve during a sinusoidal
"steady-state test" or by "logarithmic decrement" of the response record during a free vibration test.
Note that the damping capacity is not a unique value of a structure, but is known to vary with the
level of excitation. Acceleration response amplitude was plotted with respect to exciting frequency in
a steady-state test of a reinforced concrete building at different excitation levels (Jennings and
8
1 f 2 f1
2 fn
xc (t )
xc = e h nt ( A cos d t + B sin d t )
where
d = n 1 h2
and A, B: integration constants dependent on the initial conditions.
For a given set of initial displacement xo and velocity v o at t = 0.0 , the solution under free
vibration is
x(t ) = e h nt [ xo cos d t +
v o + x o h n
sin d t ]
Damping factor h may be determined by the logarithmic decrement, defined as the natural
logarithm of the amplitude ratio of two consecutive peaks in free vibration;
h=
x
1
ln m
2 xm +1
9
Viscous damping is the only means to dissipate kinetic energy in a linear system, and damping
has a considerable influence on response amplitude of a linear system.
Damping Matrix: The mechanism of damping in a structure is not of viscous type. The damping
matrix cannot be formulated by the material properties and geometry of a structure. Therefore, it is
not reasonable to assume complicated damping. The damping matrix may be formulated for each
story rather than for each member.
Rayleigh type dampingLord Rayleigh, 1842-1919of the following form is often assumed in the
response analysis of a multi-degree-of-freedom system;
[C ] = a o [ M ] + a1 [ K ]
where [C ] : damping matrix, [M ] : mass matrix, and [K ] : stiffness matrix, and a0 and a1 are
proportionality constants. The Rayleigh damping is used because the general coordinates (mode
shapes), obtained for an undamped system, are also orthogonal with respect to the damping matrix.
For n -th mode, damping factor hn is expressed as
hn =
ao
+ a1 n
If the damping matrix is made proportional to the mass matrix, damping factors corresponding to
vibration modes decreases with mode number; i.e., higher mode response can be more easily
excited. If the damping matrix is proportional to stiffness matrix, damping factors increases with
mode number; i.e., higher mode response can be suppressed in the response. The constants a o
and a1 are determined by damping factors and frequencies of vibration in arbitrary two modes.
In general, the mode shapes can be made orthogonal if a damping matrix is selected in the
following form (Caughey damping);
[C ] = [ M ] a i ([ M ] 1 [ K ]) i
i
The Rayleigh damping is a special case of the Caughey damping, in which i = 0 and i = 1 are
considered. A damping factor hn of n -th mode is given as
hn =
a
i
2i
n
Note that damping factors are normally estimated from a series of steady-state dynamic tests of
a structure, but the accuracy of the values is limited due to, first of all, unknown mechanism of
damping, and difficulty in obtaining higher mode modal characteristics.
With the reduction of stiffness caused by damage in en inelastic response, the constant damping
matrix (proportional to constant mass matrix or proportional to initial elastic stiffness matrix) tends to
increase effective damping factors. The additional energy dissipation by damping with damage is
hard to rationalize because hysteretic energy dissipation is considered in the hysteresis of stiffness
models. Therefore, it is recommended to make the damping matrix proportional to instantaneous
stiffness in an in elastic response analysis. Damping matrix proportional to instantaneous stiffness is
reported to be favorable in simulation of earthquake response of test structures (Otani and Sozen,
1972, Omote and Takeda, 1974).
References:
Jennings, P. C., and J. H. Kuroiwa, "Vibration and Soil-Structure Interaction Tests of a Nine-story
Reinforced Concrete Building," Bulletin, Seismological Society of America, No. 58, 1968, pp.
891-916.
Omote, Y., and T. Takeda, "Study on Elasto-plastic Response of Reinforced Concrete Chimney
10
(Part 1: Model Test) (in Japanese)," Transactions, Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 215,
January 1974, pp. 21-32.
Otani, S., and M. A. Sozen, "Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures," Civil
Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 392, University of Illinois, 1972.
11
Quasi-static
Strain, mm/mm
Strain, mm/mm
12
Strain, mm/mm
Stress-strain relation of steel under load reversals
Bar slip, mm
Resistance, tonf
Resistance, tonf
Earthquake
simulator
tests
of
reinforced concrete members and
structural models have been successfully
Bar
slip, mm
Bar slip
simulated by analysis on the basis of
hysteresis model developed on the basis
of
force-deformation
relationship
Average bond stress-bar slip relation for D10 bars
observed in static laboratory tests
(vos and Reinhardt, 1982)
(Takeda, Nielsen and Sozen, 1970,
Otani and Sozen, 1972, Koike, Omote and Takeda, 1980,).
Displacement, cm
Displacement, cm
Note that strain rate (velocity) during an oscillation is highest at low stress levels, and that the rate
gradually decreases toward a peak strain (displacement). Damage in the reinforced concrete
reduces the stiffness, elongating the period of oscillation. Furthermore, such damage is caused
normally by lower modes of oscillation having longer periods. Therefore, the strain rate effect can be
judged small on the earthquake response of a normal reinforced concrete structure.
13
References:
Cowell, W. L., "Dynamic Tests of Concrete Reinforcing Steels," Technical Report No. 394, U.S.
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California, 1965.
Cowell, W. L., "Dynamic Properties of Plain Portland Cement Concrete," Technical Report No. 447,
U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California, 1966.
Koike, K., Y. Omote and T. Takeda, "Reinforced Concrete Wall-Frame Structures subjected to
Dynamic and Static Loading," Proceedings, Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 6, September 1980, 419-426.
Mahin, M. A., and V. V. Bertero, "Rate of Loading Effect on Uncracked and Repaired Reinforced
Concrete Members," EERC No. 72-9, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California at Berkeley, 1972.
Manjoine, M. J., "Influence of Rate of Strain and Temperature on Yield Stresses of Mild Steel,"
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 11,
December 1944, pp. A211-A218.
Otani, S., and M. A. Sozen, "Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frames during
Earthquakes," Civil engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 392, University of Illinois,
November 1972.
Takeda, T., N. N. Nielsen and M. A. Sozen, "Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated
Earthquake," Proceedings, Structural Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. St12, December
1970, pp. 2557-2573.
Vos, E., and H. W. Reinhardt, "Influence of Loading Rate on bond Behavior of Reinforcing Steel and
Prestressing Strands," Materials and Structures, Vol. 15, No. 85, March 1982, pp. 3-10.
Further References on Strain Rate Effect
1. Atchley, B. L., H. L. Furr, "Strength and Energy Absorption Capabilities of Plain Concrete under
Dynamic and Static Loadings," Journal, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 64, No. 11, November
1967, pp. 745-7556.
2. Birkimer, D. L., and R. Lindemann, "Dynamic Tensile Strength of Concrete Materials," Journal,
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 68, No. 1, January 1971, pp. 47-49.
3. Clark, D. S., and P. E. Duwez, "The Influence of Strain Rate on Some Tensile Properties of Steel,"
Proceedings, American Society of Testing Materials, Vol. 50, 1950, pp. 560-575.
4. Criswell, M. E., "Static and Dynamic Response of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections,
ACI SP-42, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, Vol. II, 1974, pp. 721-746.
5. Crum, R. G., "Tensile Impact Tests for Concrete Reinforcing Steel," Journal, American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 56, No. 1, July 1959, p. 59.
6. Kaplan, S. A., "Factors Affecting the Relationship between Rate of Loading and Measured
Compressive Strength of Concrete," Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 32, No. 111, June
1980, pp. 79-88.
7. Manjoine, M. J., and A. Nadai, "High Speed Tension Tests at Elevated Temperatures, Part 1,"
Proceedings, American Society of Testing Materials, Vol. 40, 1940, pp. 822-837.
8. Seabolt, R. H., "Dynamic Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams, Part II," Technical
Report R-502, U. S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, California, January 1967, pp. 52-56.
9. Shiga, T. and J. Ogawa, "The Experimental Study on the Dynamic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Frames," Proceedings, Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago,
Chile, 1969, B-2, pp. 166-176.
10. Sparks, P. E., and J. R. Menzies, "The Effect of Rate of Loading upon the Static and Fatigue
Strengths of Plain Concrete in Compression," Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 25, No. 83,
June 1973, pp. 73-80.
11. Takeda, J, and H. Tachikawa, "Deformation and Fracture of Concrete subjected to Dynamic
Load," Proceedings, International Conference on the Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Kyoto,
Vol. IV, 1971.
12. Watstein, D. "Effect of Strain Rate on the Compressive Strength and Elastic Properties of
Concrete," Journal, American Concrete Institute, Vol. 49, No. 8, April 1953, pp. 729-744.
13. Zielinski, A. J., H. W. Reinhardt and H. A. Kormeling, "Experiments on Concrete under Uniaxial
Impact Tensile Loading," Materials and Structures, Vol. 14, No. 80, March-April 1981, pp.
103-112.
14
A strong motion accelerograph to record ground acceleration was developed in the early 1930s.
The characteristics of earthquake ground motions were studied through the observed records; i.e.,
common features of acceleration records were abstracted and general shapes of response spectra
were established for design purpose taking the local effect of soil into account.
Historical records about earthquake occurrences are studied to estimate the probability of the
maximum earthquake intensity in a region. A large uncertainty exists in the estimated maximum
ground acceleration attributable to the inaccuracy and the limited period of the historical
documentation.
Engineering Seismology: Earthquake ground motions specific at a construction site is influenced
by the geometry of active faults, dynamic rupture process of earthquake sources, and the
transmission of earthquake motions from the earthquake source to the construction site. There have
been efforts by engineering seismologists to estimate the characteristics of future earthquake
motions.
The global parameters (fault length, width and seismic moment) of future earthquakes can be
estimated by the seismic history, geological investigation and source modeling of active faults near
the construction site. The local source parameters (slip heterogeneity on fault plane) are important to
characterize the fault movement along the slip plane, especially the slip and slip velocity.
The local parameters, such as the transmission characteristics of earthquake motion from
earthquake source to the construction site, cannot be evaluated theoretically, but must be
determined by the source inversion of past major events with the use of statistical analysis or by the
observation of minor earthquakes. The transfer function from the source to the construction site may
be estimated by an empirical Greens function; i.e., the transfer function of past small earthquakes in
the region. The intensity of earthquake wave decays with distance.
The earthquake wave is generally transmitted from the fracture fault through hard rock layers and
then to the ground surface through relatively soft surface soil. The characteristics of ground motion
are significantly modified by the properties of surface soil layers, such as the properties and
15
geometry of the subsurface soil layers, surface topography, and depth and properties of the
underlying bedrock. Soft soil layers consisting of river deposits tend to amplify long period
components of an earthquake motion, causing serious damage to houses and buildings.
It is important to recognize that seismic design of a structure is based on a large uncertainty
about the characteristics, especially intensity, of a design earthquake motion.
Reference:
Architectural Institute of Japan: Seismic Loading - State of the Art and Future Developments (in
Japanese), November 1988, 438 pp.
16
d2
d2
{
x
(
t
)}
+
{
D
(
t
)}
+
{
R
(
t
)}
=
[
M
]{
e
}
y (ti )
i
i
i
dt 2
dt 2
[ M ]{&x&}i + {D}i + {R}i = [ M ]{e} &y&i
[M ]
d2
in which [M]: mass matrix,
{x (ti )} = {&x&}i : acceleration vector relative to the structures base at
dt 2
time ti, {D (t i ) = {D}i : damping force vector at time ti, {R (t i )} = {R} i : resistance vector at time ti,
d2
y (ti ) = &y&i : horizontal ground acceleration at time ti, {e} : vector with elements equal to 1.0 for
dt 2
horizontal degrees of freedom and zero for the rest of degrees of freedom.
Assuming that resistance and damping force vary linearly with displacement and velocity relative
to the base, respectively, over a short time increment t from t i to t i +1 , the equation of motion at
the new time step t i +1 may be written;
[ M ]{&&
x}i +1 + {D}i +1 + {R}i +1 = [ M ]{e}{&&
y}i +1
x}i +1 + {D}i + {D}i +1 + {R}i + {R}i +1 = [ M ]{e}{&&
y}i +1
[ M ]{&&
or expressing incremental resistance {R}i +1 as the product of instantaneous stiffness [ K ]i at
time ti and incremental displacement {x}i +1 , and incremental damping force {D}i +1 as the
product of instantaneous damping matrix [C ]i at time ti and incremental velocity {x&}i +1 ;
[ M ]{&&
x}i +1 + {D}i + [C ]{x&}i +1 + {R}i + [ K ]{x}i +1 = [ M ]{e}{ &&
y}i +1
x}i +1 + [C ]{x&}i +1 + [ K ]{x}i +1 = [ M ]{e}{ &&
y}i +1 {R}i {D}i
[ M ]{&&
{&x&}i +1 , {x&}i +1 and {x}i +1 are solved by a numerical integration procedure and numerical
solution of a set of linear algebraic equations.
It is important to evaluate
{R}i +1 and
Ri+1
K xi +1
Ri +1
Ri
xi
due to nonlinearity.
xi +1
xi+1
d 2x
dx
+c
+ kx = p (t )
2
dt
dt
m&x& + cx& + kx = p = at + b
m
p(t)
a
t
mx&&p + cx& p + kx p = at + b
x& p = c1
&x&p = 0
The above relations are substituted into the equation of motion to determine the constants c1 and c2
of the assumed particular solution:
cc1 + k ( c1t + c2 ) = at + b
or
( kc1 a ) = 0
( cc1 + kc2 b) = 0
Solving for c1 and c2, we obtain
c1 =
a
k
a
c2 = ( b c ) / k
k
or
xp =
a
bk ac
t+
k
k2
where
d = n 1 h2
k
m
c
h=
2 mk
n =
d : damped circular frequency, n : undamped circular frequency, h: damping factor. A and B are
integration constants dependent on the initial condition.
Therefore, the complete solution x(t) for the loading is
x = x p + xc
=
a
bk ac
t+
+ e hnt ( A cos d t + B sin d t )
2
k
k
x& =
a
+ e hnt { h n ( A cos d t + B sin d t ) + d ( A sin d t + B cos d t )}
k
xo = A +
vo =
bk ac
k2
a
h n A + d B
k
The integration constants A and B are solved from the initial conditions;
A = xo
B=
bk ac
k2
( h n xo + vo h n
bk ac a
)
k2
k
Namely, the response at any time t (> 0) is expressed as a function of the system constants h, k,
and
d , the loading function p(t)=a t + b, and the initial conditions xo and vo at time t = 0.
p(t ) = pi + ( pi +1 pi )
= pi +
t ti
ti +1 ti
pi +1
( t ti )
ti +1
= ai +1 + bi +1
where
ai +1 =
pi +1
ti +1
bi +1 = pi
= t ti
The response at any time t ( t i < t < t i +1 , 0 < < t i +1 ) can be expressed by known initial conditions
xi and x& i at time t = t i ( = 0.0). Therefore, the response velocity x& i +1 and displacement xi+1 at
time ti+1 are determined.
xi +1 =
p
pi +1 ti +1 1
+ 2 ( pi k i +1 c ) + e hn ti +1 ( A cos d ti +1 + B sin d ti +1 )
ti +1 k
k
ti +1
p c
1
( pi +1 i +1 ) + e hn ti +1 ( A cos d ti +1 + B sin d ti +1 )
k
ti +1 k
=
x& i +1 =
1 pi +1
+ e hn ti +1 { h n ( A cos d ti +1 + B sin d ti +1 )
k ti +1
+ d ( A sin d ti +1 + B cos d ti +1 )}
p
1
A = xi 2 ( pi k i +1 c )
k
ti +1
B=
{h n xi + x& i
h n
p
1 pi +1
( pi k c i +1 )
}
2
k
ti +1
k ti +1
The procedure may be successively applied as long as the loading function is given in a piece-wise
linear form over a short time increment.
The response can be calculated in the following form:
xi +1 = A1 xi + A2 x& i + A3 pi +1 + A4 pi
x& i +1 = B1 xi + B2 x& i + B3 pi +1 + B4 pi
p cx& i +1 kxi +1
&x&i +1 = i +1
m
where,
A1 = e h n t {
A2 = e h n t
A3 = e h n t
A4 = e h n t
sin d t + cos d t}
1 h2
1
sin d t
1
2h 2 1
2h
1
2h
{
sin d t +
cos d t} + 2 {1
}
2
n
n t
n t d
n
1
B1 = e h n t
{(
2
h
1 h2
n
1 h2
2h 2 1
2h
2h
) sin d t + (1 +
) cos d t} + 3
d t
n t
n t
sin d t
B2 = e h n t (cos d t
h
1 h2
sin d t )
2h 2 1
h
(cos d t
sin d t )
2
n t
1 h2
2h
1
3 ( d sin d t + h n cos d t )} + 2
n t
n t
1
2h
B4 = e h n t {( 2 + 3 )( d sin d t + h n cos d t )
n n t
B3 = e h n t {
2h 2 1
1
h
sin d t )} 2
( + 2 )(cos d t
2
n n t
n t
1 h
h
A1 = E (H S + C)
4
A2 = E S / d
A3 = E (1 / k)(H1 S + H2 C) + (1 - H2) / k
A4 = - E [(H + H1) S + (1 + H2) C] / k + H2 / k
B1 = - E
n S /
1 h2
B2 = E (C - H S)
B3 = E {H1( d C - h
n S) - H2( d S + h n C)} / k + 1 / (k t )
B4 = E [(1 + H2)( d S + h n C) - (H + H1)( d C - h n S)} / k - 1 / (k t )
where
d t
S = sin d t
E = e - h n t
C = cos
H=h/
1 h2
H1 = (2h2 -1) / ( d t )
H2 = 2h / ( n t )
The coefficients Ai and Bi (i= 1, 2, 3, and 4) can be made constant if time increment t of
numerical integration is fixed and system properties m, c, and k do not change with time. In such a
case, the computing time may be significantly reduced.
Not that this procedure is exact if the exciting function is given as a series of piece-wise linear
functions.
Therefore, this procedure is most desirable for the response analysis of a linearly elastic
single-degree-of-freedom system. However, in the case of a nonlinear problem, the coefficients As
and Bs must be evaluated whenever the tangent stiffness k and damping coefficient c are altered.
Reference:
Nigam, N.C., and P. C. Jennings, "Calculation of Response Spectra from Strong-Motion Earthquake
Records," Bulletin, Seismological Society of America, Vol. 59, No. 2, April 1969, pp. 909 - 922.
(t t o ) 2 d 2 x
(t t o ) 3 d 3 x
dx
{x(t )} = {x(t o )} + (t t o ){ }t =to +
{ 2 }t = t o +
{ 3 }t = t o + L
dt
2!
3!
dt
dt
k
k
(t t o ) d x
=
{ k }t =to
k!
dt
k =0
The accuracy of the expression will be improved by considering more terms and by evaluating the
function near to.
The displacement and velocity are expanded by the Taylor series at time ti to evaluate the
functions at time ti+1;
t 2
t 3
{&x&}i +
{&x&&}i + L
2
6
t 2
&
&
&
&
{x}i +1 = {x}i + t{x}i +
{&x&&}i + L
2
where t = ti +1 ti .
{x}i +1 = {x}i + t{x&}i +
{&&&
x }i =
{&&
x}i +1 {&&
x}i
t
The following relations are obtained for displacement and velocity increments;
t 2
t 2
{&x&}i +
{&x&}i +1
3
6
t
t
= {x&}i +1 {x&}i = {&x&}i + {&x&}i +1
2
2
The equation of motion at time ti+1 may be solved for {&x&}i +1 , {x&}i +1 and {x}i +1 ;
([m] +
{&x&}i +1
t
t 2
t
t 2
[c ] +
[k ]){&&
[k ]){&&
x}i +1 = { p}i +1 [k ]{x}i ([c] + t[k ]){x&}i ( [c] +
x}i
2
6
2
3
= [ A1 ]{ p}i +1 + [ A2 ]{&x&}i + [ A3 ]{x&}i + [ A4 ]{x}i
where,
t
t 2
[c ] +
[k ]) 1
2
6
t
t 2
[ A2 ] = [ A1 ]( [c] +
[k ])
2
3
[ A3 ] = [ A1 ]([c] + t[k ])
[ A1 ] = ([m] +
[ A4 ] = [ A1 ][k ]
The displacement and velocity are calculated using the linear acceleration procedure;
1
1
{x}i +1 = {x}i + t{x&}i + t 2 {&x&}i + t 2 {&x&}i +1
3
6
1
1
{x&}i +1 = {x&}i + t{&x&}i + t{&x&}i +1
2
2
The time increment t for the response analysis must be chosen to satisfy the following
conditions;
(a) Excitation function, hysteresis relations, and response waveforms can be expressed
with a satisfactory accuracy,
(b) The accuracy of response results can be attained, and
(c) The numerical integration gives stable results.
The solution of the linear acceleration method diverges if the time increment is selected larger
than 1/3 of the shortest modal period of oscillation of the system.
Newmark (1959) suggested the following relations for the numerical integration;
1
{x}i +1 = {x}i +1 {x}i = t{x&}i + ( ) t 2 {&x&}i + t 2 {&x&}i +1
2
{x&}i +1 = {x&}i +1 {x&}i = (1 ) t{&x&}i + t{&x&}i +1
where
The value of must be 1/2, and 1/ 4 . If the value of is selected to be greater than 1/2, the
response amplitude becomes greater than the true value; if the value is smaller than 1/2, then the
amplitude becomes smaller.
For the numerical integration to give stable results, the time increment t must be less than
one-sixth of the shortest modal period of the system for = 1/6. The scheme is known to be
unconditionally stable for
= 1/4.
The equation motion can be solved for the acceleration {&x&}i +1 at the new time step;
{[ M ] + t[C ] + t 2 [ K ]){&x&}i +1
1
= { p}i +1 {D}i {R}i (1 ) t[C ]{&x&}i t[ K ]{x&}i ( ) t 2 [ K ]{&x&}i
2
(b) Evaluate the displacement increment {x}i +1 and velocity increment {x&}i +1 by the
*
following relations;
1
{x}*i +1 = t{x&}i + ( ) t 2 {&x&}i + t 2 {&x&}*i +1
2
*
{x&}i +1 = (1 ) t{&x&}i + t{&x&}*i +1
{x}*i +1 = {x}i + {x}*i +1
{x&}*i +1 = {x&}i + {x&}*i +1
*
(c) Evaluate damping force {D}*i+1 and resistance {R}*i+1 for the calculated velocity {x&}i +1
*
(e) If the re-evaluated acceleration {&x&}i +1 differs from the assumed acceleration {&x&}i +1 by
more than a specified tolerance { } , the assumed acceleration {&x&}i +1 is replaced by the
*
re-evaluated acceleration {&x&}i +1 in step (a), and the procedure is iterated until a satisfactory
conversion is achieved.
Sharpe and Carr (1974) studied a condition for numerical stability as follows;
at the end of each time step using Newmark Beta scheme. They derived a convergence criteria as
8
follows;
t
1
h
h
1
<
[
+ ( )2 + ]
T 2 2
2
Newmark (1959) showed the convergence criteria for an undamped linear system as follows;
t
1 1
T 2
1
equivalent to the linear acceleration scheme,
For =
6
t
0.39
T
Sharpe and Carr (1974) extended Newmarks derivation of convergence for undamped system to
damped system. The criterion is shown below;
t
1 h2
<
T 1 4
References
Newmark, N. M., "A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics," Journal, Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, July 1959, pp. 67 - 94.
Sharpe, R. D., and A. J. Carr, "The Seismic Response of Inelastic Structures," Research Report
74-13, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, November
1974.
p(t)
t
ti
ti +1
ti +1
ti*+1
{[ M ] + t[C ] + ( t ) 2 [ K ]){&&
x}i +1
1
= { p}i +1 {D}i {R}i (1 ) t[C ]{&&
x}i t[ K ]{x&}i ( )( t ) 2 [ K ]{&&
x}i
2
*
The relationship may be solved for {&x&}i +1 , and the acceleration at time ti+1 is determined by the
interpolation (assuming linear variation of acceleration over time increment);
{&x&}i +1 =
1
{&x&}*i +1 + (1 ){&x&}i
Velocity {x&}i +1 and displacement {x}i +1 at time t + t are evaluated by the Newmark Beta method;
1
{x}i +1 = {x}i + t{x&}i + ( ) t 2 {&x&}i + t 2 {&x&}i +1
2
{x&}i +1 = {x&}i + (1 ) t{&x&}i + t{&x&}i +1
The value of
is often used.
was suggested to be greater than 1.37 for numerical stability; = 1.37 to 1.40
The Wilson's Theta method is known to introduce numerical damping, a fictitious damping caused
by the numerical integration scheme especially for higher mode (short period) oscillation; the period
of oscillation is elongated and response amplitude decays with time (Bathe and Wilson, 1973). It is
believed that some error may be tolerated in higher mode oscillation because the higher mode
response may not govern the total response in a normal case.
Stability and Accuracy: It is important in selecting numerical integration scheme to examine the
stability of the procedure. Some scheme is stable when the time increment is selected less than a
certain fraction of the period of the highest mode; otherwise, error is continuously amplified during
the numerical integration and the response diverges with time. The stability of a numerical
integration scheme may be examined for a linearly elastic single-degree-of-freedom system without
any damping under free vibration;
&&
x + n2 x = 0.0
The error can be expressed in terms of period elongation and amplitude decay as a function of time
increment t over natural period T .
The accuracy of numerical integration is another problem. Although a numerical integration
scheme may be unconditionally stable for the choice of time increment, the result may not be
accurate if the time increment is large with respect to the natural period. Such inaccuracy may be,
10
sometimes, tolerated for higher mode response because the higher mode response is often
negligibly small compared with the dominant response.
11
It is often said that numerical damping can be considered a good feature in numerical schemes
because it may be used to damp out and practically suppress the response of those modes for
which the response cannot be calculated accurately. However, the range of errors should be
estimated.
A six-story two-bay linearly elastic frame was analyzed using the Wilson's Theta method and the
Newmark Beta method (Sharpe and Carr, 1974). Vertical and horizontal masses were considered at
each node. The stability criterion for an analysis using the linear acceleration technique requires a
time step of approximately 1/400 sec for this structure. Beta value of the Newmark Beta method was
varied from 1/12 ( t = 1/400 sec) to 1/4 ( t = 1/100 sec), and theta value of the Wilson's Theta
method was selected to be 1.5 and 2.0 with a time increment of t =1/100 sec.
The top story displacement waveforms are compared. The response waveforms calculated by the
Newmark Beta method were almost identical, while the waveforms calculated by the Wilson Theta
method showed a difference from the response waveforms calculated by the Newmark Beta
methods. This particular response was dominated by the first mode component, but the appreciable
difference can be observed. If the oscillation is governed by higher frequency components such as
the acceleration waveform, then the effect of numerical (artificial) damping would appear more in the
calculated waveform.
It should be noted that the role of the analytical tool is to give results as close to the exact solution
as possible. In this standpoint, the Wilson Theta method does not satisfy the criteria.
References:
Bathe, K.-J., and E. L. Wilson, "Stability and Accuracy Analysis of Direct Integration Methods,"
International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 1, 1973, pp. 283
- 291.
Bathe, K.-J., and E. L. Wilson, "Linear and Nonlinear Earthquake Analysis of Complex Structures,"
Proceedings, World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, 1973, Paper No. 224.
12
Hilber, H.M., et al., Improved Numerical Dissipation for Time Integration Algorithms in Structural
Dynamics, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, No. 5, 1977, pp. 283 - 292.
Sharpe, R. D., and A. J. Carr, "The Seismic Response of Inelastic Structures," Research Report
74-13, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, November
1974.
Wilson, E. L., "A Computer Program for the Dynamic Stress Analysis of Underground Structures,"
SESM Report 68-1, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1968.
13
dx
= F ( x, t )
dt
the initial value problem is solved in a form
xi +1 = xi +
where,
f 0 + 2 f1 + 2 f 2 + f 3
6
f 0 = tF ( xi , ti )
f0
t
, ti + )
2
2
f1
t
f 2 = tF ( xi + , ti + )
2
2
f 3 = tF ( xi + f 2 , ti + t )
f1 = tF ( xi +
This integration scheme is extended for the ordinary differential equation of the second order;
{F ( x, x& , t )} = {x&}
{ f 0 } + 2{ f1} + 2{ f 2 } + { f 3 }
6
{g } + 2{g1} + 2{g 2 } + {g 3 }
= {x&}i + 0
6
{x}i +1 = {x}i +
{x&}i +1
where,
{g 0 } = t{G ( xi , x& i , ti )}
= t[ M ]1 ({ p}i [C ]{x&}i [ K ]{x}i )
f0
g
t
, x& i + 0 , ti + )}
2
2
2
g
t
= t[ M ]1 ({ p(ti + } [C ]{x& + 0 }i [ K ]{x +
2
2
f1
g1
t
{g 2 } = t{G ( xi + , x& i + , ti + )}
2
2
2
g
t
= t[ M ]1 ({ p(ti + } [C ]{x& + 1 }i [ K ]{x +
2
2
{g 3 ) = t{G ( xi + f 2 , x& i + g 2 , ti + t )}
{g1} = t{G ( xi +
f0
}i )
2
f1
}i )
2
Reference:
Gill, S., "A Procedure for the Step-by-step Integration of Differential Equations in an Automatic
Computing Machine," Proceedings, Cambridge Philosophical Society, 49:96, 1951.
15
Appendix: Linearly elastic response of SDF System under earthquake motion (FORTRAN
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
READ (5,500) TITL
READ (5,500) LUNT,TUNT
C
C
C
C
C
C
16
C
READ (5,*) NSTT,NSTP,MTHD
IF (NSTT.LE.0) NSTT=1
IF (NSTP.LE.NSTT) NSTP=NSTT
IF (MTHD.LE.0) MTHD=1
IF (MTHD.GT.4) MTHD=1
WRITE (6,604) NSTT,NSTP
C
C
C
C
C
C
EARTHQUAKE RECORD
9 READ (5,500) EQNM
WRITE (6,606) EQNM
C
C
C
INITIAL CONDITIONS
ISTP=0
IST=0
NST=0
GACC(2)=0.0
TIME(2)=0.0
TT=0.0
C
10 TIME(1)=TIME(2)
GACC(1)=GACC(2)
READ (5,*) TIME(2),GACC(2)
NST=NST+1
IF (NST.GT.NSTT) GO TO 20
IF (NST.LT.NSTT) GO TO 10
GA=GACC(2)*ASCL
A0=-(GA+BT*V0+W2*D0)
TIM=TIME(2)
CALL PRINT (IST,TIM,DT,A0,V0,D0,GA,LUNT,TUNT)
GO TO 10
C
20 IF (NST.GT.NSTP) GO TO 60
DLT=TIME(2)-TIME(1)
IF (DLT) 60,10,30
C
30 GR=GACC(1)*ASCL
SLP=(GACC(2)-GACC(1))*ASCL/DLT
TI=-TT
TT=TT+DLT
C
38 IF (DT.GT.TT) GO TO 10
TT=TT-DT
TI=TI+DT
G0=GA
GA=GR+SLP*TI
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
NUMERICAL INTEGRATION
PREVIOUS RESPONSE VALUE (A0,V0,D0) MUST BE REPLACED BY
NEW RESPONSE VALUES (A0,V0,D0)
A0: ACCELERATION RELATIVE TO GROUND
V0: VELOCITY RELATIVE TO GROUND
D0: DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE TO GROUND
GA: GROUND ACCELERATION
40 GO TO (41,42,43,44),MTHD
41 CALL JNNGS2 (A0,V0,D0,G0,GA,W2,BW,A1,A2,A3,A4,B1,B2,B3,B4,&49)
17
IF (IST.GT.0) GO TO 10
FORMAT FOR PRINTING RESPONSE
WRITE (6,600) TUNT,LUNT,TUNT,LUNT,TUNT,
1
LUNT,TUNT,LUNT,LUNT,TUNT
10 T=TIM+DT*FLOAT(IST)
C
ABSOLUTE ACCELERATION RESPONSE
A=A0+GA
WRITE (6,602) IST,T,GA,A0,V0,D0,A
600 FORMAT (" STEP"," TIME
"," GR. ACC. "," REL. ACC. ",
1
" VELOCITY ","DISPLACEMENT"," ABS. ACC. ",/,
2
3X," (",A4,") ","(",A4,"/",A4,"**2)",
3
"(",A4,"/",A4,"**2)","(",A4,"/",A4,")",
4
" (",A4,") ","(",A4,"/",A4,"**2)",/)
602 FORMAT (I5,F8.3,5(2X,1PE10.3))
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE JNNGS1 (DT,WN,BT,A1,A2,A3,A4,B1,B2,B3,B4,*)
C
C
CALCULATION OF NUMERICAL CONSTANTS IN JENNINGS-NIGAM METHOD
C
C
INPUT
18
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
DT
WN
BT
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B1=0.5*DT
B2=DT*DT/3.0
B3=B2*0.5
A=1.0+BT*WN*DT+WN*WN*B3
A1=-1.0/A
A2=-WN*DT*(BT+WN*DT/3.0)/A
A3=-WN*(BT+BT+WN*DT)/A
A4=-WN*WN/A
WRITE (6,600)
RETURN 1
600 FORMAT ("LINEAR ACCELERATION METHOD",/)
END
SUBROUTINE NWMRK1 (DT,WN,BT,A1,A2,A3,A4,*)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
BETA=1.0/6.0
C
C
C
BETA
19
A1=0.5*DT
A2=(0.5-BETA)*DT**2
A3=BETA*DT**2
A4=0.0005
WRITE (6,600) BETA, A4
RETURN 1
600 FORMAT ("NEWMARK BETA METHOD", /,
1
5X,"BETA
= ",F10.3, /,
2
5X,"ERROR LIMIT = ",1PE10.3,/)
END
SUBROUTINE RKGIL1 (DT,A1,*)
C
C
C
C
C
C
A1=0.5*DT
WRITE (6,600)
RETURN 1
600 FORMAT ("RUNGE-KUTTA-GILL MEHOTD",/)
END
SUBROUTINE JNNGS2 (A0,V0,D0,G0,GA,W2,BW,A1,A2,A3,A4,B1,B2,B3,B4,*)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D=A1*D0+A2*V0-A3*GA-A4*G0
V0=B1*D0+B2*V0-B3*GA-B4*G0
A0=-GA-W2*D-BW*V0
D0=D
RETURN 1
END
SUBROUTINE LNACC2 (A0,V0,D0,GA,DT,A1,A2,A3,A4,B1,B2,B3,*)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A=A1*GA+A2*A0+A3*V0+A4*D0
20
D0=D0+V0*DT+A0*B2+A*B3
V0=V0+(A0+A)*B1
A0=A
RETURN 1
END
SUBROUTINE NWMRK2 (A0,V0,D0,GA,DT,W2,BW,A1,A2,A3,A4,*)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
OUTPUT
A0
V0
D0
B=V0+A1*A0
C=D0+V0*DT+A0*A2
10 A=A0
V0=B+A1*A
D0=C+A3*A
A0=-GA-BW*V0-W2*D0
ER=ABS(A0-A)/(ABS(A0)+ABS(A))
IF (ER.GT.A4) GO TO 10
RETURN 1
END
SUBROUTINE RKGIL2 (A0,V0,D0,G0,GA,DT,W2,BW,A1,*)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
OUTPUT
A0
V0
D0
F0=DT*V0
G0=DT*A0
F1=F0+A1*G0
G1=G0-A1*(-G0+GA+BW*G0+W2*F0)
F2=F0+A1*G1
G2=G0-A1*(-G0+GA+BW*G1+W2*F1)
F3=F0+DT*G2
G3=G0-DT*(-G0+GA+BW*G2+W2*F2)
D0=D0+(F0+F1+F1+F2+F2+F3)/6.0
V0=V0+(G0+G1+G1+G2+G2+G3)/6.0
A0=-GA-BW*V0-W2*D0
21
RETURN 1
END
22
7.1 Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in the structural analysis of a moment-resisting plane frame
structure;
(a) All members and loads lie in the vertical plane of a frame (Plane Frame),
(b) Each member is prismatic and straight,
(c) Small displacement,
(d) Each element is rigidly connected at a joint. Member end displacement is equal to the
displacement at the connecting joint (Continuity Condition).
(e) Members behave within linearly elastic region,
(f) Axial and flexural deformation is considered for each member,
(g) External forces act at joints,
(h) External forces acting at a joint are equal to the sum of member end forces of members
connected to the joint (Equilibrium of Forces).
Each member is represented by a straight-line element passing through the geometrical centroid
of the section of a member. Axial and flexural elastic deformations are considered for each member.
Shear deformation is neglected for simplicity, but shear deformation can be included in the analysis
by introducing shear deformation in the member stiffness matrix. Flexible connection can be
considered by introducing rotational or shear springs at member ends.
Under a small displacement, the equilibrium of forces can be expressed using the coordinate
system for pre-deformed configuration.
Internal bending moment should be calculated at the geometrical centroid of the section. The
axial deformation is zero under bending at the geometrical centroid because the neutral axis under
bending passes through the geometrical centroid when the member is in the linearly elastic state.
Therefore, the axial deformation at the geometrical centroid is null under bending.
However, the neutral axis shifts from the
geometric centroid after the stress in section exceeds
the proportional limit of materials. Axial strain at the
geometric centroid develops elongation of the
member even under pure bending. The interaction of
axial and bending deformation should be considered
in the analysis.
The forces acting within a member should be
replaced by the equivalent member end actions
(forces equal to fixed end forces, but having opposite
sign). The effect of forces acting in the member will
be considered after the member end forces are
determined in the structural analysis.
mz1
mz2
py1
py2
py1
mz1
py2
mz2
p x1
{ p1}i = p y1
m
z1 i
px 2
{ p2 }i = p y 2
m
z 2 i
p y1
p x1
p y2
p x2
2
m z2
m z1
For each member, member end displacements {d1}i and {d 2 }i at start end 1 and terminal end
2 of member i, are
d x1
{d1}i = d y1
z1 i
d x 2
{d 2 }i = d y 2
z 2 i
z2
dx1
dy1
py2
z1
x
dx2
Member stiffness relation: The relation of member end actions and member end displacement
through member stiffness sub-matrices.
EA
L
[ k11 ]i = 0
0
12 EI
L3
6 EI
L2
6 EI
L2
4 EI
L i
EA
0
L
12 EI
[k12 ]i = [k 21 ]i T = 0
3
L
6
EI
0
2
EA, EI
L
EA
L
0
6 EI
L2
2 EI
L i
d x1 = 1.0
6 EI
L2
EA
L
6 EI
L2
d y1 = 1.0
12EI
L3
= 1.0
12 EI
L3
z1
EA
6 EI
2 EI
0
0
4 EI
6 EI
2
L
2
L
L
L
L
12 EI
6 EI
[k 22 ]i = 0
2
L3
L
4 EI
0 6 EI
L2
L i
in which E : Young's modulus of material, A : cross sectional area, I : moment of inertia of section,
and L : member length.
X = x cos y sin
Y = x sin + y cos
=
PX = px cos p y sin
PY = px sin + p y cos
M Z = mz
or
px = PX cos + PY sin
p y = PX sin + PY cos
mz = M Z
PX cos
PY = sin
M 0
Z i
sin
px cos
p y = sin
m 0
z i
sin
cos
0
cos
0
0 p x
0 p y
1 i m z i
0 PX
0 PY
1 i M Z i
The relations of forces in the global and local coordinates can be expressed in a symbolic matrix
form using a transformation matrix [T ]i ;
{P}i = [T ]i { p}i
{ p}i = [T ]i1{P}i
[T ]i = [T ]i
D X cos
DY = sin
0
Z i
sin
cos
0
0 d x
0 d y
1 i z i
d x cos
d y = sin
0
z i
sin
cos
0
0 D X
0 DY
1 i Z i
or
{D}i = [T ]i {d }i
T
{d}i = [T ]i {D}i
T
where, matrix [T ]i is the transpose of matrix [T ]i .
{P1}i
{p1}i
{P1}i = [T ]i { p1}i
{d1}i = [T ]i {D1}i
T
{d 2 }i = [T ]i {D2 }i
The member end actions {P1}i at the starting end of member i are expressed in terms of
member end displacements {D1}i and {D2 }i both in the global coordinate system:
z2
Dx1
Dy1
where,
Dy2
1 z1
Dx2
[ K11 ]i = [T ]i [k11 ]i [T ]
T
i
Similarly, the member end action {P2}i at the terminal end can be expressed in the global
coordinate system;
{P2 }i = [T ]i ([k 21 ]i {d 1 }i + [k 22 ]i {d 2 }i )
[ K 21 ]i = [T ]i [k 21 ]i [T ]Ti
[ K 22 ]i = [T ]i [k 22 ]i [T ]Ti
Joint J
Joint K
Starting End 1
Term inal End 2
M em ber i
K12 D1
K 22 i D2 i
where,
[ K jk ] = [T ]i [k jk ][T ]Ti
for
j, k = 1,2
Joint J
Joint K
Starting End 1
Term inal End 2
Mem ber i
{D1}i = {D}J
{D2 }i = {D}K
where {D1 }i : displacement at start end 1 of member i, connected to joint J of the structure,
expressed in the global coordinate system, {D2 }i : displacement at terminal end 2 of member i,
connected to joint K of the structure, expressed in the global coordinate system, {D}J :
displacement at joint J of the structure expressed in the global coordinate system, {D}K :
displacement at joint K of the structure expressed in the global coordinate system.
{P}J = {PJ }i
i =1
where, {P}J : external forces acting at joint J of the structure expressed in the global coordinate
system, {PJ }i : member end forces of member i at a member end connected to joint J of the
structure expressed in the global coordinate system, n: number of members connected to joint J of
the structure. If start end 1 of member i is connected to joint J of the structure, {PJ }i = {P1 }i ; if
terminal end 2 is connected to joint J, {PJ }i = {P2 }i .
Member n
Jn
Member 1
Joint J
J1
J2
Member i
Ji
{PJ }i = {P1 }i
{PJ}i={P1}i
2
Joint J
1
Joint Ki
Member i
X
By the continuity condition of member end displacements and structural joint displacements at a
joint in the global coordinate system,
{D1 }i = {D}J
{D2 }i = {D}Ki
Therefore,
Similarly, if terminal end 2 of member i is connected to joint J and starting end 1 to joint Ki,
member end forces {PJ }i of member i at Joint J are expressed as
{PJ }i = {P2 }i
= [ K 21 ]i {D1}i + [ K 22 ]i {D2 }i
= [ K 21 ]i {D}Ki + [ K 22 ]i {D}J
Y
{PJ}i={P2}i
2
Joint Ki
1
Member i
Joint J
X
By the equilibrium condition of member end forces and external forces at joint J, where n
members are connected,
n
{P}J = {PJ }i
i =1
Suppose m members of start end 1 are connected to joint J of the structure and (n-m) members of
terminal end 2 are connected to the same joint,
10
i =1
i =1
[ K
i = m +1
] {D}Ki + [ K 22 ]i {D}J
21 i
[ K 21 ]i {D}Ki +
i = m +1
[ K
] {D}J
22 i
i = m +1
If the equilibrium of forces is written for every joint including the support joint, the external forces
[ K12 ]i at (J, K) location, [ K 21 ]i at (K, J) location, and [ K 22 ]i at (K, K) location. This process of
adding member sub-matrices to the structural stiffness matrix is repeated for all members.
J
[K] =
K
l
l
l
l
l
l
-------------(J,J)------------------------------(J,K)----l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
------------(K,J)-----------------------------(K,K)----l
l
l
l
l
l
[ K ( J , J )] = [ K ( J , J )] + [ K11 ]i
[ K ( J , K )] = [ K ( J , K )] + [ K12 ]i
[ K ( K , J )] = [ K ( K , J )] + [ K12 ]Ti
[ K ( K , K )] = [ K ( K , K )] + [ K 22 ]i
If the symmetric properties of the structural stiffness matrix are recognized, then only upper
triangle part of the structural stiffness matrix need be formulated.
M O M
P L K
I
II
=
P
L
K
JI
J
M M
M
K IJ
K JJ
M
L M
L DI
L DJ
O M
11
{Ps } at a support joint is not known. On the other hand, at free end, displacement {D f } is not
known, but force (external load) {Pf } is given.
known:
Pf K ff K fs D f
=
Ps K sf K ss Ds
where {Ds } = {0} . The free joint displacement {D f } can be solved from the first equation:
{D f } = [ K ff ]1{Pf }
and then, the support reaction {Ps} is solved.
{Ps } = [ K sf ]{D f }
Free Joint
Support Joint
12
Joint J
Joint K
Starting End 1
Term inal End 2
{ p2 }i = [k 21 ]i {d1}i + [k 22 ]i {d 2 }i
Mem ber i
py2
mz2
mz1
px1
Member i
FEM2
px2
Structural Analysis
13
FEM1
1
2
EIb
EIc,EAc
EIc,EAc
X
3
Z1
DY 1
DX 1
Z 2
DY 2
DX 2
2
Z 3
DY 3
DY 4
DX 3
Z 4
DX 4
Member Coordinate System: The x-axis of a member is taken in the direction of the member, and
the y-axis normal to the member axis. The member direction of a beam is from left to right, and that
of a column is downward. Displacement {d x , d y , z } and force { px , p y , mz } are defined at starting
and terminal ends in the direction of the member coordinates. Rotation and moment are positive
counterclockwise.
z1 , m z1
d x1 , p x1
1
y
d y1 , p y1
z1 , m z1
d x1 , p x1
d y1 , p y1
1
d y2 , py2
2
z2 , mz2
d x2 , px2
d y2 , py2
d x2 , px2
z2 , mz2
x
The transformation matrices for a column ( =-90.0 deg) and a beam ( =0.0 deg) are given as
follows;
14
[T ]column
[T ]beam
Beam Stiffness Matrix in Member Coordinates: For a beam 1-2, no axial deformation is
considered. Therefore, the stiffness matrix of a beam in the member coordinates is given as below;
EAb
EAb
0
0
0
0
l
l
px1
d x1
d x2
12 EI b 6 EI b
12 EI b 6 EI b
0
d y1
d y2
= 0
+
3
p y1
3
2
2
l
l
l
l
m
z1 beam
z1 beam
z 2 beam
6
4
6
2
EI
EI
EI
EI
b
b
b
b
0
l2
l beam
l
l beam
EAb
EAb
0
0
0
0
l
l
px 2
d x1
d x2
12 EI b
6 EI b
12 EI b
6 EI b
0
=
3
2
+ 0
2
py 2
d y1
d y 2
3
l
l
l
l
m
z 2 beam
z1 beam
z 2 beam
6
2
6
4
EI
EI
EI
EI
b
b
b
0
0
2b
l2
l beam
l
l beam
z2
z1
d y2
mz1
p y1
px1
d y1
mz 2
py2
2
px 2
Beam Stiffness Matrix in Global Coordinates: The member coordinates of the beam coincide with
the global coordinates; hence the member stiffness matrix of the beam is expressed in the same
form;
EAb
EAb
0
0
0
0
l
l
PX 1
DX 1
DX 2
12 EI b 6 EI b
12 EI b 6 EI b
0
= 0
+
3
PY 1
DY 1
DY 2
3
2
2
l
l
l
l
M
Z 1 beam
Z 1 beam
Z 2 beam
6
4
6
2
EI
EI
EI
EI
b
b
b
b
0
2
2
l
l beam
l
l beam
EAb
0
l
P
X2
12 EI
0
=
3 b
P
Y2
l
M
Z 2 beam
6 EI b
0
l2
but DX 1 = DX 2 and PX1=-PX2.
EAb
l
DX 1
6 EI
0
2b
+
D
Y1
Z 1 beam
2 EI b
0
l beam
0
15
0
12 EI b
l3
6 EI
2b
l
DX 2
6 EI b
2
DY 2
l
Z 2 beam
4 EI b
l beam
0
Column Stiffness Matrix in Member Coordinates: The stiffness matrix of a column is given in the
member coordinates as follows;
px1
p y1
m
z1 column
EAc
h
= 0
px 2
py 2
m
z 2 column
EAc
h
= 0
EAc
0
h
d x1
6 EI c
+ 0
d
2 y1
h
z1 column
4 EI c
0
h
0
12 EI c
h3
6 EI c
h2
12 EI c
h3
6 EI
2c
h
EAc
h
d x1
6 EI c
2 d y1
+ 0
h
z1 column
2 EI c
0
h
12 EI c
h3
6 EI c
h2
u y1
1
A
0
d x 2
6 EI c
d y 2
h2
2 EI c z 2 column
h
d x2
6 EI c
2 d y 2
h
4 EI c z 2 column
h
0
12 EI c
h3
6 EI
2c
h
ux1
z1
z2
ux 2
x
uy 2
Column Stiffness Matrix in Global Coordinates: The member coordinates of a column rotate 90
degrees clockwise. The member stiffness matrix of the beam is expressed as follows;
PX 1
PY 1
M
Z 1 column
12 EI c
h3
= 0
6 EI c
h 2
PX 2
PY 2
M
Z 2 column
12 EI c
h3
= 0
6 EI c
h 2
6 EI c
12 EI c
2
h3
h
DX 1
0 DY 1
+ 0
Z 1 column
4 EI c
6 EI c
h 2
h
0
EAc
h
0
0
EAc
h
0
6 EI c
12 EI c
2
h3
h
DX 1
+ 0
0
D
Y1
Z 1 column
2 EI c
6 EI c
h 2
h
16
6 EI c
h2 D
X2
0 DY 2
2 EI c Z 2 column
h
0
EAc
h
0
0
EAc
h
0
6 EI c
h2 D
X2
0 DY 2
4 EI c Z 2 column
h
Joint 1:
DX
DX 1
DX 1
= DY 1
= DY 1
DY
DX
DX 2
DX 1
= DY 2
= DY 1
DY
Joint 3:
DX
DX 2
= DY 2
DY
Z Jo int 3 Z 2 Member 2
Joint 4:
DX
DX 2
= DY 2
DY
Z Jo int 4 Z 2 Member 3
Equilibrium of Forces at Joint: The equilibrium of forces is considered at each joint;
Joint 1:
PX
PX 1
PX 1
= PY 1
+ PY 1
PY
M
PX
PX 2
PX 1
= PY 2
+ PY 1
PY
M
PX
PX 2
= PY 2
PY
M
Z Jo int 3 M Z 2 Member 2
Joint 4:
PX
PX 2
= PY 2
PY
M
Z Jo int 3 M Z 2 Member 2
17
Structural Stiffness: The stiffness of the structure is formulated by using the equilibrium and
continuity conditions at each joint;
Joint 1:
PX
PX 1
PX 1
= PY 1
+ PY 1
PY
M
12 EI b
= 0
l3
6 EI b
0
l2
12 EI c
0
h3
EAc
+ 0
EI
6
c
0
2
h
EAb
0
l
DX
6 EI b
0
DY +
l2
4 EI b Z 1
0
l 1
0
12 EI b
l3
6 EI
2b
l
6 EI c
12 EI c
2
h3
h
DX
0 DY + 0
Z 1
4 EI c
6 EI c
2
h 2
h
0
EAc
h
0
DX
6 EI b
DY
l2
2 EI b Z 2
l 1
6 EI c
h2 D
D
0
Y
2 EI c Z 3
h 2
Joint 2:
PX
PX 2
PX 1
= PY 2
+ PY 1
PY
M
= 0
12 EI c
h3
+ 0
6 EI c
h 2
12 EI b
l3
6 EI b
l2
0
EAc
h
0
EAb
l
DX
6 EI
2 b DY + 0
l
2 EI b Z 1
0
l 1
0
6 EI c
12 EI c
2
h3
h
D
X
0 DY + 0
Z 2
4 EI c
6 EI c
h 2
h 3
Joint 3:
18
0
12 EI b
l3
6 EI
2b
l
0
EAc
h
0
DX
6 EI b
2
DY
l
4 EI b Z 2
l 1
0
6 EI c
h2 D
D
0
Y
2 EI c Z 4
h 3
PX
PX 2
= PY 2
PY
M
Z Jo int 3 M Z 2 Member 2
12 EI c
h3
= 0
6 EI c
h 2
12 EI c
h3
= 0
6 EI c
h 2
6 EI c
12 EI c
2
h3
h
DX 1
0 DY 1 + 0
Z 1 2
2 EI c
6 EI c
h 2
h
EAc
h
0
0
6 EI c
12 EI c
2
h3
h
DX
0 DY + 0
Z 1
2 EI c
6 EI c
h 2
h
EAc
h
0
6 EI c
h2 D
X2
0 DY 2
4 EI c Z 2 2
h
EAc
h
0
0
EAc
h
0
6 EI c
h2 D
X
0 DY
4 EI c Z 3
h
Joint 4:
PX
PX 2
= PY 2
PY
M
Z Jo int 4 M Z 2 Member 3
12 EI c
h3
= 0
6 EI c
2
h
12 EI c
h3
= 0
6 EI c
2
h
6 EI c
12 EI c
2
h3
h
DX 1
0 DY 1 + 0
Z 1 3
2 EI c
6 EI c
2
h
h
EAc
h
0
0
6 EI c
12 EI c
2
h3
h
D
D
+
0
0
Y
2 EI c Z 2 6 EI c
2
h
h
EAc
h
0
DX 0.0
DY = 0.0
0.0
Z 3
DX 0.0
DY = 0.0
0.0
Z 4
Therefore, the stiffness matrix of the structure is written as
19
6 EI c
h2 D
X2
0 DY 2
4 EI c Z 2 3
h
EAc
h
0
0
EAc
h
0
6 EI c
h2 D
X
0 DY
4 EI c Z 4
h
EAb
l
PX
= 0
PY
M
Z Jo int 1
0
12 EI c
0
h3
DX
6 EI b
0
DY +
l2
4 EI b Z 1 6 EI c
2
l 1
h
0
12 EI b
l3
6 EI b
l2
0
EAc
h
EAb
0
0
l
DX
12 EI b 6 EI b
+
3
0
DY
l
l2
6 EI b 2 EI b Z 2
0
2
l
l 1
EAb
EAb
0
0
l
l
PX
DX
12 EI
6 EI
= 0
3 b 2 b DY + 0
PY
l
l
M
Z Jo int 2
6 EI b
2 EI b Z 1
0
0
l2
l 1
12 EI c
h3
+ 0
6 EI c
2
h
PX
PY
M
Z Jo int 3
12 EI c
h3
= 0
6 EI c
2
h
PX
PY
M Z Jo int 4
12 EI c
h3
= 0
6 EI c
2
h
6 EI c
h2 D
X
0 DY
4 EI c Z 2
h 3
0
EAc
h
0
EAc
h
0
EAc
h
0
6 EI c
h2 D
X
0 DY
4 EI c Z 1
h 2
0
12 EI b
l3
6 EI
2b
l
Free joint 1
DX
6 EI b
2
DY
l
4 EI b Z 2
l 1
0
Free joint 2
6 EI c
h2 D
X
0 DY
2 EI c Z 1
h
Support joint 3
6 EI c
h2 D
X
0 DY
2 EI c Z 2
h
Support joint 4
24 EI
h3
0
PX 1
PY at jnt1
M Z at jnt1
PY at jnt 2
M Z at jnt 2
6 EI c
h2
0
6 EI c
h2
12 EI b EAc
+
l3
h
6 EI b
l2
12 EI
3 b
l
6 EI b
l2
6 EI c
h2
6 EI b
l2
4 EI b 4 EI c
+
h
l
6 EI b
2
l
2 EI b
l
21
12 EI b
l3
6 EI
2b
l
12 EI b EAc
+
l3
h
6 EI
2b
l
6 EI c
h2
6 EI b
l2
2 EI b
l
6 EI b
2
l
4 EI b 4 EI c
+
h
l
DX 1
DY at jnt 1
M Z at jnt 1
DY at jnt 2
M Z at jnt 2
l = 3.00 m
E = 200 10 3
A = 10
I = 1010
mm
l, E , A, I
N / mm 2
M= 100 kN m
= 30o
mm 4
l, E , A, I
22
0.0124
0.2473
0.2473
23
{F (t )} = {R (t )}
In a dynamic problem, the external force may be the sum of externally applied dynamic forces, and
negative values of inertia and damping forces. The internal force is the restoring force of the
structure.
{F (t )} = {P (t )} [ M ]{&&
z (t )} {D(t )}
where {P(t )} : external force at time t, [ M ] : mass matrix, normally defined as lumped mass at
z (t )} : absolute acceleration at mass
each floor corresponding to the horizontal degree of freedom, {&&
point, {D (t )} : damping resistance, normally defined at each floor for the horizontal degree of
freedom. Damping force may be assumed to be proportional to velocity {x& (t )} relative to the base
of the structure, but the damping matrix may be made proportional to instantaneous stiffness in the
horizontal degree of freedom.
The structural resistance and damping resistance may be written in incremental form;
[M ]({&x&(ti+1 )}+ &y&(ti+1 ){e}) + {D(ti )}+ {D(ti+1 )}+ {R(ti )}+ {R(ti+1 )} = {0}
y (ti +1 ) : ground acceleration (given value as an input earthquake motion) at ti +1 , and {e} :
where &&
vector having unit value for all elements.
Separating the known quantities and unknown quantities, the equilibrium of dynamic forces at
time t i +1 can be written as
[M ]{&x&(ti+1 )}+ {D(ti +1 )}+ {R(ti+1 )} = &y&(ti+1 )[M ]&y&(ti+1 ){e} {D(ti )} {R(ti )}
The increment of internal force {R (ti +1 )} may be approximated by product of tangent stiffness
[ K ]ti and incremental displacement {x(t )} relative to the base of the structure, and the
increment of damping force {D (ti +1 )} by the product of tangent damping matrix [C ]ti and
incremental velocity {x& (t )} .
[M ]{&x&(ti+1 )}+ [C ]t {x& (ti+1 )}+ [K ]t {x(ti+1 )} = &y&(ti+1 )[M ]&y&(ti+1 ){e} {D(ti )} {R(ti )}
i
The incremental acceleration, velocity and displacement are related through a numerical
integration method assumed in the analysis. For example, using the Newmark method scheme,
1
{x(ti +1 )} = t{x& (ti )} + ( )t 2 {&&
x(ti )} + t 2 {&&
x(ti +1 )}
2
1
1
{x& (ti +1 )} = t{&&
x(ti )} + t{&&
x(ti +1 )}
2
2
x(ti )} are known velocity and
where is a constant of the Newmark Beta method, {x& (ti )} and {&&
acceleration vectors at previous time step ti.
1
The three linear equations may be solved to determine incremental displacement and velocity
The stiffness of constituent members is nonlinear and the incremental internal force {R (ti +1 )}
may not be expressed as the product of tangent stiffness [ K ]ti and incremental displacement
{x(ti +1 )} . Nor may the incremental damping force {D(ti +1 )} at new time step ti +1 not be equal
to the product of tangent damping matrix [C ]ti and incremental velocity {x& (ti +1 )} . Therefore, the
equilibrium force may not be satisfied at new time step ti +1 . In other words, the internal force
{R(ti + ti+1 )}
{R(ti )}
Fi +1
Di +1
Ki xi +1
Ki
Fi
xi +1
Ci x&i +1
Fi +1
Ci
Di +1
Di
x
xi
{x(ti+1 )}.
x&
x&i
xi +1
x&i +1
x&i +1
Structural resistance {R (ti +1 )} and damping resistance {D (ti +1 )} at new time step must be
re-evaluated for calculated new displacement {x(ti +1 )} and velocity {x& (ti +1 )} to satisfy the
hysteresis and damping relations. It should be noted, therefore, that the equilibrium of dynamic force
at new time increment is not satisfied;
{R (ti +1 )} + [ M ]{&&
z (ti +1 )} + {D (ti +1 )} {P (ti +1 )} = {Error (ti +1 )}
It is generally time consuming to correct this error within the current time step because stiffness
and damping may be nonlinear in the dynamic problem. The unbalanced force {Error (ti +1 )} must
be corrected in the equilibrium of dynamic force in the next time interval.
If the correction of error is desired within the same time step, Newton-Raphson iteration method
may be used. The incremental linearization of the equilibrium equation leads to;
[ K ]{u} = {S }
(i )
The right hand side of the equation {S } may be updated for residue vector {Error (ti +1 )} , and
new solution may be sought;
[ K ]{u (i ) } = {S ( i ) }
The solution may be updated at iteration i;
{u ( i +1) } = {u (i ) } + {u (i ) }
In this solution process, the stiffness matrix should be reformulated. However, the reformulation of
stiffness matrix and its factorization is computationally expensive. Therefore, the initial stiffness
[ K 0 ] is normally maintained during iteration steps. The convergence may be accelerated by the use
of a scale factor
{u
( i +1)
[ A]{ X } = {b}
where, [ A] : coefficient matrix of size n x n, {X } : column vector of n unknowns, {b} : column
vector of n constants. The coefficient matrix [ A] is symmetric and positive definite in a normal
structural analysis.
A symmetric positive definite matrix [ A] can be decomposed into the product of three matrices as
follows:
[ A] = [ L][ D][U ]
= [U ]T [ D][U ]
in which [L] : lower unit triangular matrix, [D] : diagonal matrix, and [U ] : upper unit triangular
T
matrix (= [ L] ). The diagonal elements of lower and upper unit triangular matrices are equal to
unity.
1
l
21
[ A] = l 31
M
l n1
1
u
12
= u13
M
ul 1n
0
1
l 32
M
l n2
0
1
u 23
M
ul 2 n
0
0
1
M
l n3
0 d 11
0 0
0 0
M M
1 0
L 0 d 11
L 0 0
L 0 0
O M M
L 1 0
L
L
L
O
L
0
0
1
M
u 3n
0
d 22
0
M
0
0
d 22
0
M
0
L 0 1 u12
L 0 0 1
L 0 0 0
O M M M
0 L d nn 0 0
0 L 0 1 u12
0 L 0 0 1
d 33 L 0 0 0
M O M M M
0 L d nn 0 0
0
0
d 33
M
u13 L u1n
u 23 L u 2 n
1 L u 3n
M O M
0 L 1
u13 L u1n
u 23 L u 2 n
1 L u 3n
M O M
0 L 1
where, l ij = u ji .
[ A] = d 11u13 d 22 u 23
L 0 0 0
d 33
1 L u 3n
M
M
O M M M
M O M
M
d 11u1n d 22 u 2 n d 33 u 3n L d nn 0 0
0 L 1
L
d 11u12
d 11u13
d 11u1n
d 11
d u
2
L
d 11u12 + d 22
d 11u12 u13 + d 22 u 23
d 11u12 u1n + d 22 u 2 n
11 12
2
= d 11u13 d 11u12 u13 + d 22 u 23
L
+ d 33
d 11u132 + d 22 u 23
d 11u13 u1n + d 22 u 23 u 2 n + d 33 u 3n
M
M
O
M
M
i 1
d
k =1
kk
u ki
i 1
d
k =1
kk
u ki u kj
The relations may be solved for u ij (for i<j) and d ii . Note that [u ij ] is an upper triangular
matrix with null lower triangular elements ( u ij = 0 for i > j) and with unit diagonal element ( u ii = 1 ).
Therefore, only upper triangular elements need be stored; unit diagonal elements may not have to
be stored. Instead diagonal element d ii of the diagonal matrix [D] can be stored at the diagonals
i 1
kk
uki
k =1
i 1
d
k =1
kk
uki ukj ) / d ii
It should be noted that matrix elements aij and u ij appear in the same expression; in other words,
{P} = [ K ]{D}
The structural stiffness matrix is formulated member by member rather than joint by joint. For
member i with start end connected to joint J and terminal end to joint K, member stiffness sub-matrix
[K11]i is added at (J, J) location of the structural stiffness matrix [K ] , [ K 12 ]i at (J, K) location,
[K] =
J
K
l
l
l
l
l
l
--------(J,J)-----------------------------(J,K)----l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
--------(K,J)-----------------------------(K,K)----l
l
l
l
l
l
J
Member i
K
[ K ]i = 11
K 21
K12
K 22 i
Unless a member connects joints L and M, a structural stiffness sub-matrix at (L,M) is null; in
other words, (L,M) sub-matrix is not null if joints L and M are connected by a member. By proper
choice of joint numbering, the structural stiffness can be made narrowly banded.
To conserve computer time and storage, only the upper band of the stiffness matrix [K] is
normally constructed in a rectangular array of size N x NB, where N: the number of degrees of
freedom and NB: semi-band-width. The diagonal elements are stored in the first column of the
rectangular array.
The band width of the upper unit triangular matrix [U] is the same as that of the coefficient matrix
[A]. An element at ID(J) line and ID(K) column of the original square matrix can be stored at IR line
and IC column in a compact storage format.
IR=ID(J)
IC=ID(K)-(IR-1)
[ A]{ X } = {B}
The coefficient matrix [ A] can be decomposed into the products of lower triangular matrix,
diagonal matrix and upper triangular matrix:
[U ]T [ D][U ]{ X } = {B}
Let
and
[U ]{ X } = {Y }
[ D]{Y } = {Z }
then
[U ]T {Z } = {B}
The third relation can be expressed in a matrix form:
1
u
12
u13
M
u1n
u 23
M
1
M
u 2n
u 3n
L 0 z1 b1
L 0 z 2 b2
L 0 z 3 = b3
O M M M
L 1 z n bn
z1 = b1
z 2 = b2 u12 z1
z 3 = b3 u13 z1 u 23 z 2
M
i 1
z i = bi u ki z k
k =1
M
n 1
z n = bn u kn z k
k =1
d 11
0
M
0
d 22
0
M
0
d 33 L
M O
0
0 y1 z1
0 y 2 z 2
0 y3 = z3
M M M
d nn y n z n
y i = z i / d ii
The ys are stored in vector {z}.
7
1 u12
0 1
0 0
M M
0 0
u13 L u1n x1 y1
u 23 L u 2 n x 2 y 2
1 L u 3n x 3 = y 3
M O M M M
0 L 1 x n y n
xn = y n
x n 1 = y n 1 u n 1,n x n
x n 2 = y n 2 u n 2,n 1 x n 1 u n 2,n x n
M
xi = y i
k =i +1
ik
xk
M
n
x1 = y1 u1k x k
k =2
into the product of unit lower triangular matrix [U ] , diagonal matrix [D ] and unit upper triangular
matrix [U ] .
N: number of unknowns (number of columns of coefficient matrix [ A] ),
NB: semi-band width of coefficient matrix [ A] ,
[U ] : decomposed unit upper triangular matrix, stored in banded rectangular array, with
diagonal elements of diagonal matrix [D ] stored in the first column, array size of N x NB,
{B} : column vector of n constants,
{X } : column vector of n unknowns, used as working area for {Y } and {Z } .
29
31
32
33
34
23
24
25
26
27
16
17
18
19
20
10
11
12
13
30
22
X1
X
{X } = 2
M
X n
15
Node displacements
Y1
{Y } = 1
Ym
m
5
6
35
28
21
14
Degrees of freedom
If lumped translational masses are assumed at each floor level, the mass matrix becomes
diagonal with non-zero elements associated with the floor horizontal degrees of freedom and zero
elements associated with the nodal displacements.
[M ] = diagonal [M1,M2,...,Mn,0,0,....,0]
M XX
0
0
0
The stiffness matrix is normally banded, but can be expressed in a partitioned form;
K
[ K ] = XX
K YX
K XY
K YY
d2y
= &y& may be
The equation of motion of an undamped system under horizontal base motion
dt 2
expressed as
R X
K XX K XY X
M XX 0 e
M XX 0 X&&
=
&y&i +1
&& +
0 Y i +1 K YX K YY Y i +1
0 0
0
RY i
where, {X } : horizontal floor displacement, {Y } : nodal vertical displacement and rotation, {e} :
vector of unit elements.
From the second equation;
and
{Y }i +1 = [ K YY ] 1 ([ K YX ]{X }i +1 + {RY }i )
Therefore, the first equation can be written as
10
[ M XX ]{ X&&}i +1 + ([ K XX ] [ K XY ][ K YY ] 1 [ K YX ]){X }i +1
= [ M XX ]{e}&y& + [ K KY ][ K YY ] 1{RY }i {R X }i
[ M * ]{ X&&} + [ K * ]{X }
i +1
or
i +1
= [ M ]{e}&y& + [ K XY ][ K YY ] 1 {RY }i {R X }i
*
The equation of motion can be solved for incremental story displacement {X }i +1 and then
incremental nodal displacement and rotation {Y }i +1 can be determined by
{Y }i +1 = [ K YY ] 1 ([ K YX ]{X }i +1 + {RY }i )
It should be noted that the inverse matrix of [ K YY ] is not formed in formulating the story matrix;
but a set of linear algebraic equations of the following form are solved;
[ K YY ][a] = [ K YX ]
[ K YY ]{b} = {RY }
or
[ K YY ][a M b] = [ K YX M RY ]
by decomposing the matrix [ K YY ] into [ L][ D][U ] .
{Y }i +1 = [a]{X }i +1 {b}
A series of plane frames were analyzed by (a) direct [ L][ D][U ] decomposition of the entire
matrix and (b) the static decomposition. The number of stories was varied from 3 to 30. The number
of bays in a frame was 2, 4 or 9. The computation time required to solve a set of equations was
compared.
11
Computation time, ms
9-bay frame
4-bay frame
2-bay frame
LTDL Decomposition
Static condensation
Number of Stories
The computation time is reduced to one-half to one-third by the direct [L][D][U] decomposition
method compared to the static condensation method for a frame of more than 10-story high.
However, the number of operation is much less for the static condensation if the stiffness does
not change during a time increment. The computation time by the static condensation may not be
reduced even if the number of parallel frames increased.
12
2EI
2EI
3EI
3EI
If shear and axial deformation are ignored, each floor joint can move only in the horizontal
direction. Neither vertical nor rotation can take place at the joint.
Slope deflection equation of column AB with flexural rigidity EI ;
2 EI
(2 A + B 3RAB )
h
2 EI
( A + 2 B 3RAB )
=
h
M AB =
M BA
A = B = 0.0
M AB + M BA 24 EI
= 2 RAB
h
h
24 EI
24 EI
= 3 AB = 3 ( xi xi 1 )
h
h
Vi = 2
0
6 3 0
3 5 2 0
[K ] = 24 EI
h 3 0 2 4 2
0 2 2
0
Decompose the stiffness matrix in [ K ] = [ L][ D ][U ] form.
13
[Solution]
The stiffness matrix of the structure is
6 3 0 0
24 EI 3 5 2 0
[K ] = 3
h 0 2 4 2
0 0 2 2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
EI
=
4
1
0 h3
0
7
7
0
1
0
10
144 0
0 84
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
480
7
0
1
2
0 1
0
72 0 0
5 0 0
0
0
4
7
1
0
7
10
1
{R}i = {P}i
M = P
Assuming that structural members behave linearly elastic between time steps ti and ti +1 ,
incremental resistance {R}i +1 between the two adjacent time steps may be written as the product
of instantaneous (tangent) stiffness [ K ]i +1 and incremental displacement {D}i +1 at joints. Hence,
k-directions, separately;
L
f jk 2 = {
0
n j ( x) nk (k )
EA( x)
v j ( x) vk (k )
GAs ( x)
m j ( x) mk (k )
EI ( x)
mz 2 , z 2
py2 , d y 2
px 2 , d x 2
}dx
where, E : Youngs modulus, A( x) : cross sectional area, As ( x) : effective shear area, and I ( x) :
moment of inertia of section at coordinate x.
Castigliano's Theorem is expressed in the following form to calculate displacement di :
di =
=(
U
pi
L m( x ) 2 v ( x ) 2
n( x ) 2
+
+
) (
)dx
pi 0 2 EI ( x) 2GA( x) 2 EA( x)
where U: strain energy stored in the structure expressed in terms of external forces { px 2 , p y 2 , mz 2 }
at the free end, m( x) : bending moment, v( x) : shear, n( x) : axial force,
{d 2 }i = [ f 22 ]i { p2 }i
where, each element f ij of flexibility matrix [ f 22 ]i represents the displacement in j-direction at the
free end due to unit load applied in the k-direction at the free
end.
Stiffness of Elastic Prismatic Cantilever: For a linearly
elastic prismatic cantilever, neglecting shear deformation,
the flexibility relation is expressed as follows;
{p2}i
1
member i
EI, EA
L
{d2}i
d x 2
d y 2
z 2 i
L
EA
= 0
0
px 2
L2
py2
2EI
L mz 2 i
EI i
0
L3
3EI
L2
2 EI
Solving this relationship for free end action { p 2 }i , we obtain the stiffness relation for the
cantilever;
1
{ p2 }i = [ f 22 ]i {d 2 }i
= [k 22 ]i {d 2 }i
1
[k 22 ]i = [ f 22 ]i
in which [k22 ]i is the stiffness matrix of the cantilever member i .
For a linearly elastic prismatic member; the stiffness matrix is expressed
px 2
p y2
m
z 2 i
EA
0
L
12EI
= 0
L3
0 6 EI
L2
0
d x 2
6EI
2 d y 2
L
4EI z 2 i
L i
Stiffness Matrix of Cantilever with Shear Deformation: The shear deformation increases lateral
deformation d y 2 at the free end due to lateral force p y 2 . The flexibility relation is written as
d x2
d y 2
z 2 i
L
EA
= 0
L3
+
GA 3EI
L2
2 EI
0
px 2
L2
py 2
2 EI
m
L z 2 i
EI i
By inverting the flexibility relation, the stiffness matrix of a prismatic cantilever can be expressed as
px 2
py 2
m
z 2 i
where
EA
0
L
1 12 EI
= 0
1 + 2 L3
1 6 EI
0
1 + 2 L2
0
d
x2
1 6 EI
d y 2
1 + 2 L2
z 2 i
1+
2 4 EI
1 + 2 L i
6EI
, : shape factor for shear deformation.
GAL2
p
p
m
= 0 : px1 + px 2 = 0
= 0 : p y1 + p y 2 = 0
z @1
mz1
mz2
1
px1
py2
py1
member i
px2
= 0 : mz1 + mz 2 + Lp y 2 = 0
in which, x-axis of the member coordinate system is taken in the direction of the straight member.
Writing in a matrix form; the member end forces { p1}i and { p2 }i of member i are related
through an equilibrium matrix [ H12 ]i
where,
{p1 }i
p x1
= p y1
m
z1 i
{p2 }i
px2
= py2
m
z 2 i
1 0 0
[ H12 ]i = 0 1 0
0 L 1 i
Force [ H12 ]i { p2 }i is a force developed at end 1 due to force { p2 }i acting at end 2.
By the same token,
[ H 21 ]i { p1}i + { p2 }i = {0}
where the member length L in matrix [ H 21 ]i is measured from the terminal point.
1 0 0
[ H 21 ]i = 0 1 0
0 L 1 i
Note that
{ p1}i = [ H12 ]i { p2 }i
= [ H12 ]i [ H 21 ]i { p1}i
hence,
[ H12 ] = [ H 21 ]1
The inverse matrix of an equilibrium matrix is obtained by changing the sign of off-diagonal terms.
dx1
d x 2 = d x1
2z
1z
dy1 1
d y 2 =d y1 + L z1
dy2
2
dx
z 2 = z1
This relation can be written in a matrix form:
d x 2 1 0 0 d x1
d y 2 = 0 1 L d y1
0 0 1
i z1 i
z 2 i
or symbolically,
T
{d 2 }i = [ H12 ]i {d1}i
Note that {d 2 }i is a displacement at the member end 2 caused by a rigid body displacement at
member end 1. By the same token, we obtain
T
{d1}i = [ H 21 ]i {d 2 }i
Member Stiffness Matrix: For a free body of member i, the member end displacement and force
relation is formulated. If a starting end 1 of member i is allowed to displace, additional displacement
takes place at the terminal end 2 by a rigid
body movement; i.e., the deformation {e}i
2
of the member is the difference of terminal
end displacement {d 2 }i and rigid body
T
{e}i
{d2}i
[H12]Ti {d1}i
{d1}i
1
member i
{ p2 }i = [k22 ]i {e}i
Expressing the deformation by the member end displacements {d1}i and {d 2 }i , the member
end force { p2 }i is related to the member end displacements;
{ p2 }i = [k 22 ]i {e}i
T
[k 21 ]i = [k 22 ]i [ H12 ]i
EA
0
0
L
12 EI
6 EI
[k22 ]i = 0
2
L3
L
4 EI
0 6 EI
L2
L i
EA
0
0
L
12 EI
6 EI
[k21 ]i = 0
3
2
L
L
6 EI
2 EI
0
L2
L i
{ p1 }i = [ H 12 ]i { p 2 }i
= [ H 12 ]i [k 22 ]( [ H 12 ]Ti {d 1 }i + {d 2 }i )
= [ H 12 ]i [k 22 ][ H 12 ]Ti {d 1 }i [ H 12 ]i [k 22 ]{d 2 }i
= [k11 ]i {d 1 }i + [k12 ]i {d 2 }i
where,
[k11 ]i = [ H 12 ]i [k 22 ]i [ H 12 ]Ti
[k12 ]i = [ H 12 ]i [k 22 ]i
= [k 21 ]Ti
For a prismatic member,
EA
0
0
L
12 EI 6 EI
[k11 ]i = 0
L3
L2
6 EI 4 EI
0
L2
L i
EA
0
0
L
12 EI 6 EI
[k12 ]i = 0
3
L
L2
6 EI 2 EI
0
2
L
L i
p1 k11
=
p2 i k21
k12 d1
k22 i d 2 i
6
-----------------------------Note:
([ A][ B ]) T = [ B ]T [ A]T
Beam-column Connection
Structural Wall
Equilibrium Matrix: The equilibrium matrix [ H AB ] for member AB, not lying in x-direction, can be
defined in a more general form if the lengths of the member are x AB and y AB in x- and y-direction,
respectively;
p
p
m
= 0 : pxA + pxB = 0
= 0 : p yA + p yB = 0
z@ A
yAB
1
[ H AB ] = 0
y AB
0
1
x AB
0
0
xAB
It should be noted that force { p A } at starting end A is necessary to satisfy the equilibrium when
force { pB } acts at the terminal end B.
Product of Equilibrium Matrices: Consider regions AB and BC connected at B. No external force
is assumed to act at joint B.
If force { pC } acts at member end C of region BC, force { pB '} at B end is necessary to satisfy
the equilibrium in the region;
{ p B ' } + [ H BC ]{ pC } = {0}
{ p B ' } = [ H BC ]{ pC }
{ p B } + { p B ' } = {0}
{ p B } = { p B '} = [ H BC ]{ pC }
8
{ p A ' } = [ H AB ]{ p B }
{ pC }
= [ H AB ][ H BC ]{ pC }
{pA '}
= [ H AC ]{ pC }
Therefore,
0 1
0 0
1 yBC
0
1
x AB
0
=
( y AB + yBC )
0
1
= 0
1
y AC x AC
{ pB }
{ pB ' }
[ H AC ] = [ H AB ][ H BC ]
1
= 0
y AB
{ pC }
0
1
xBC
0
0
1
{pA '}
0
0
1
0
( x AB + xBC ) 1
0
0
1
y BC
B
A
y AB
y AC
xBC
xAB
x AC
The equilibrium matrix [ H AC ] of a region ABC
combing regions AB and BC can be expressed as the
product of corresponding equilibrium matrices [ H AB ] and [ H BC ] . The product matrix can be
formulated by adding the corresponding off-diagonal elements of the element matrices.
Rigid Zones and Equilibrium Matrices: Consider a member consisting of an elastic middle part BC
and rigid zones AB and CD at the two ends. The two rigid zones may not be in line with the elastic
part. The local coordinate system is defined for the middle elastic part. No external loads acts within
compound region of ABCD.
y
A
C
yAB
yCD
yBC
x
xAB
xBC
xCD
The equilibrium matrix [ H AB ] for rigid zone AB can be defined if the lengths of the rigid zones
are x AB and y AB in x- and y-directions:
1
[ H AB ] = 0
y AB
0
1
x AB
0
0
Similarly, for the middle elastic part BC and rigid zone CD, equilibrium matrices [ H BC ] and
[ H CD ] can be formulated:
1
[ H BC ] = 0
y BC
1
[ H CD ] = 0
y CD
0
1
x BC
0
0
0
1
xCD
0
0
{p2}BC
1
2
{d2}BC
BC
{d 2 }BC = [ f 22 ] BC { p2 }BC
The relation can be inverted to express force { p2 }BC
required to deform the terminal end by {d 2 }BC ;
{ p2 }BC = [k 22 ] BC [d 2 }BC
For a prismatic member,
[k 22 ] BC
EA
x BC
= 0
0
12 EI
3
x BC
6 EI
2
x BC
6 EI
2
x BC
4 EI
x BC
0
[k11 ] BC = [ H 12 ] BC [k 22 ] BC [ H 12 ]TBC
py1
= [ H BC ][k 22 ] BC [ H BC ]T
mz2
mz1
[k12 ] BC = [k 21 ]TBC
= [ H 12 ] BC [k 22 ] BC
= [ H BC ][k 22 ] BC
p1
k11
=
p 2 BC k 21
py2
px1
k12 d1
k 22 BC d 2 BC
10
BC
2
px2
Member Stiffness Matrix of Compound Member: Consider a cantilever member ABCD (rigid zone
AB, elastic zone BC and rigid zone CD) with fixed end A and free end D. Let force { pD } be
member end force at end D of rigid zone CD,
{pD}
and { p2 }BC be member end force at end C of
{p2}BC={pC}
{dD}
D
{pB}
elastic part BC. These two forces are related by A
C
B
the equilibrium matrix [ H CD ] as follows;
{ p 2 }BC = [ H CD ]{ p D }
-{pB}
at D
-{pC}
caused by displacement {dC } at end C (or terminal end of elastic part BC) is expressed using
equilibrium matrix [ H CD ] ;
{d D } = [ H CD ]T {d C }
= [ H CD ]T {d 2 }BC
The region AB is rigid and does not deform. Therefore, terminal member end displacement
{d 2 }BC of part BC is expressed by the flexibility [ f 22 ]BC of part BC and terminal end force { p2 }BC :
{d 2 }BC = [ f 22 ] BC { p2 }BC
Using the relation of displacements at nodes C and D, the flexibility [ f DD ] of ABCD as a
cantilever fixed at A can be expressed as follows;
{d D } = [ H CD ]T {d 2 }BC
= [ H CD ]T [ f 22 ] BC { p 2 }BC
= [ H CD ]T [ f 22 ] BC [ H CD ]{ p D }
= [ f DD ]{ p D }
where
[ f DD ] = [ H CD ]T [ f 22 ] BC [ H CD ]
The stiffness sub-matrix [ k DD ] of a cantilever ABCD is obtained by inverting the flexibility [ f DD ]
[k DD ] = [ f DD ]1
= ([ H CD ]T [ f 22 ] BC [ H CD ]) 1
= [ H CD ]1 [ f 22 ]BC1 ([ H CD ]T ) 1
= [ H CD ]1 [k 22 ] BC ([ H CD ]T ) 1
Note that the inverse of an equilibrium matrix can be obtained by changing the sign of off-diagonal
elements; i.e.,
1
[ H CD ] = 0
y CD
1
0
1
xCD
0
0
and also the inverse of a product of matrices is the product of inverse matrices reversing the order of
product;
[ H AD ] = [ H AB ][ H BC ][ H CD ]
[k DD ] = [ H CD ]1 [k 22 ] BC ([ H CD ]T ) 1
[ H AD ]T = ([ H AB ][ H BC ][ H CD ]) T = [ H CD ]T [ H BC ]T [ H AB ]T
and
[k AA ] = [ H AD ][k DD ][ H AD ]T
= [ H AB ][ H BC ][[ H CD ][ H CD ]1 [k 22 ] BC ([ H CD ]T ) 1 [ H CD ]T [ H BC ]T [ H AB ]T
= [ H AB ][ H BC ][k 22 ] BC [ H BC ]T [ H AB ]T
= [ H AB ][k11 ] BC [ H AB ]T
[k AD ] = [k DA ]T
= [ H AD ][k DD ]
= [ H AB ][ H BC ][k 22 ] BC ([ H CD ]T ) 1
= [ H AB ][k12 ] BC ([ H CD ]T ) 1
or compound member AD consisting of
rigid zones AB and CD at ends and
elastic part BC, member stiffness matrix
relations in local coordinate system are
expressed as follows;
{ p A } = [k AA ]{d A } + [k AD ]{d D }
{PD }
{PA }
D
A
{d A }
{d D }
{ p D } = [k DA ]{d A } + [k DD ]{d D }
It should be noted that the sub-matrices [k IJ ] of the compound member could be easily derived
from the member stiffness sub-matrices [k ij ]b of the elastic part by transformation operation.
12
kx
none.
ky
kx
[ f AA ' ] = 0
kx
[ fB'B ] = 0
k AA '
0
1
ky
0
Spring at AA
A
EI , EA
L
k B ' B
0
1
ky
0
The equilibrium matrices of parts AB and AB are equal because no length is given at the springs.
[ H AB ] = [ H A ' B ]
1 0
= 0 1
0 LAB
0
0
1
{ pB }
1 0 0
[ H B ' B ] = 0 1 0
0 0 1
{d B }
B
For a cantilever member AB fixed at end A, internal forces at end A induced by external force
{ pB } is given as
{ p A ' } = [ H A ' B ]{ pB }
The deformation of spring {d A ' } at AA is given as
The displacement at end B due to the deformation of middle region AB caused by external force
{ pB } is given as
[ f BB ] ;
[k BB ] = [ f BB ]1
For the member AB, the stiffness sub-matrices
are obtained as
[k AA ] = [ H AB ][k BB ][ H AB ]
{ pB }
{ pA}
{d B }
{d A}
[k AB ] = [ H AB ][k BB ]
{ p A } = [k AA ]{d A } + [k AB ]{d B }
{ pB } = [k BA ]{d A } + [k BB ]{d B }
For a special case where no resistance is given in the spring, the spring constant can be set to
be zero in the member stiffness relation.
14
d x1
eAB = d x1 + d x 2
A = z 1 + ( d y1 d y 2 ) / L
d y1
B = z 2 + ( d y1 d y 2 ) / L
eAB
A
B i
RAB
A
z1
d y2
B
2
dx2
member i
In a matrix form;
=0
z2
0
1
L
1
L
1 0
0
d x1
1
1 d y1 + 0
L
z1
1
0
0
L
i
0
d x2
0 d y 2
z 2 i
1
i
{eAB }i = [ B1 ]i {d1}i + [ B2 ]i {d 2 }i
p x1 = p AB
mB
mA
pAB
p y1 = ( m A + m B ) / L
m z1 = m A
p x 2 = p AB
mz1
mz2
px1
p y 2 = ( m A + m B ) / L
py1
mz 2 = mB
or in a matrix form:
0 p AB
p x1 1 0
p y1 = 0 1 / L 1 / L m A
m 0
1
0 i m B i
z1 i
0
0 p AB
p x 2 1
p y 2 = 0 1 / L 1 / L m A
m 0
0
1 i m B i
z 2 i
or
15
py2
px2
{p1 }i = [B1 ]i T {p AB }i
{p 2 }i = [B2 ]i T {p AB }i
Member Stiffness Matrix in Local Coordinates: The incremental member end force-deformation
of a simply supported member may be expressed in a stiffness matrix form;
{p AB } = [k AB ]{e AB }
p AB
{ p AB } = m A
m
B
e AB
{e AB } = A
B
For a linearly elastic prismatic member,
EA
L
[k AB ] = 0
0
4 EI
L
2 EI
L
0
2 EI
L
4 EI
L
The member stiffness matrix in the local coordinate system is obtained by the transformation of
forces and displacements;
p1
d1
T
= [B1 , B2 ]i [k AB ]i [B1 , B2 ]i
p2 i
d 2 i
k12 d1
k
= 11
k 21 k 22 i d 2 i
in which
16
B'
A'
MB
MA
A
A
A'
R A' B ' =
Therefore,
MB
(1 B ) A + B B
1 A B
B' =
A A + (1 A ) B
1 A B
Similarly,
MB
A A LAB + B B LAB
(1 A B )LAB
A' =
B
B
in which
B'
RAB
MA
A LAB
MA
(1 A B ) LAB
B LAB
In a matrix form,
B A
A'
(1 B )
1
' =
(1 A ) B
B 1 A B A
or
{ '} = [A] { }
For the moments, member end moments mA and mB are expressed by moments m A ' and
mB ' at the ends of the middle elastic region, by using constant shear acting throughout the member;
(mA ' + mB ' )
mA = mA ' +
( A LAB )
(1 A B ) LAB
=
(1 B )mA '
A mB '
+
(1 A B ) (1 A B )
mB = mB ' +
=
B m A '
(1 A )mB '
+
(1 A B ) (1 A B )
In a matrix form,
17
mA
1
=
mB 1 A B
{m} = [ A]T {m'}
A m ' A
(1 B )
(1 A ) m 'B
B
The member end rotation and moment stiffness relation of a simple member is expressed as
4 EI
mA ' L
=
mB ' i 2 EI
L
{m'} = [k ']{ '}
2 EI
L A '
4 EI B '
L i
The stiffness matrix of a simple member having rigid ends can be assembled by using the
following relations:
B A
A'
(1 B )
1
' =
(1 A ) B
B 1 A B A
A m ' A
mA
(1 B )
1
=
(1 A ) m 'B
mB 1 A B B
4 EI 2 EI
mA ' L
L A '
=
mB ' i 2 EI 4 EI B '
L
L i
In a symbolic format,
18
p
{ p1 } = 1 y
m1z
p
{ p2 } = 2 y
m 2 z
d
{d1 } = 1 y
1z
d
{d 2 } = 2 y
2 z
p1 k11 k12 d 1
=
p 2 k 21 k 22 d 2
k1
k 2
EI
1
A
1 L
(1 1 2 ) L
2 L
19
[k22 ]BC
12 EI
L3 BC
=
6 EI
L2
BC
6 EI
L2BC
4 EI
LBC
(2) Calculation of stiffness matrix of the part consisting of two rotational spring and mid elastic
element.
The flexibility matrix [ F22 ]BC of the mid elastic member BC
L3BC
3EI
= 2
LBC
2 EI
L2BC
2 EI
LBC
EI
The flexibility matrix [ f 22 ]B 'C ' of the part consisting of the two springs and mid elastic element;
[ f 22 ]B 'C ' = [ H BC ' ]T [ f 22 ]B ' B [ H BC ' ] + [ H CC ' ]T [ f 22 ]BC [ H CC ' ] + [ f 22 ]CC '
L3BC L2BC
0
0 3EI 2 EI
+
+
1 L2BC LBC 0
2 EI
EI
L3BC L2BC
L2BC LBC
+
+
3EI k
2
EI
k 1
1
= 2
LBC LBC LBC 1
1
+
+
+
EI k 1 k 2
2 EI k 1
Inverting the flexibility matrix [ f 22 ]B 'C ' , the stiffness matrix of the part
0
1 LBC
=
0 1 0
0
1
1
L
k 1 BC
0
1
k 2
[k22 ]BC =
1
4
BC
2 2
3
BC
L
L
L3
L2
+
+ BC + BC
12 E I
3EIk 1 3EIk 2 k 1k 2
LBC 1
1
+
+
EI k 1 k 2
L2BC LBC
2 EI k 1
L2BC LBC
2 EI k 1
L3BC L2BC
+
EI
k 1
(3) Calculation of stiffness matrix [k22 ] AD of the entire member with rigid zones at the ends.
0
1
[ H CD ]1 =
LCD 1
1 LCD
([ H CD ]T ) 1 =
1
0
Therefore,
20
[k22 ]AD =
1
4
BC
2 2
3
BC
L
L
L3
L2
+
+ BC + BC
12 E I
3EIk 1 3EIk 2 k 1k 2
LBC 1
1
+
+
EI k 1 k 2
k 1
k 2
2 EI
k 1
k 2
2 EI
k 1
k 2
1
L4BC
L3BC
L3
L2
+
+ BC + BC
2 2
12 E I
3EIk 1 3EIk 2 k 1k 2
LBC 1
1
+
+
EI k 1 k 2
2 EI
k 1
k 2
2 EI
k 1
k 2
L) 2 ( L LCD ) 2
+
k 2
[k12 ] AD = [ H AD ][k22 ] AD
=
1
4
BC
2 2
3
BC
L
L
L3
L2
+
+ BC + BC
12 E I
3EIk 1 3EIk 2 k 1k 2
LBC 1
1
+
+
EI k 1 k 2
2 EI
k 1
k 2
2 EI
k 1
k 2
{6 LCD ( LCD L) + 3(2 LCD L) LBC + 2 L2BC }LBC ( LCD + LBC )( LCD + LBC
+
k 1
6 EI
21
L) LCD ( LCD L)
+
k 2
Bending Moment
under Gravity
Loads
Bending Moment
under
Earthquake
Bending Moment
under combined
Gravity and
Earthquake Loads
A and B , axial deformation, eAB , at member ends. In a matrix form, the elements of the
instantaneous member stiffness matrix must be evaluated:
1
p AB k11
m A = k 21
m k
B i 31
k12
k 22
k 32
mA
k13 e AB
k 23 A
k 33 i B i
mB
p AB
mz 2
mz1
In a linearly elastic structural analysis, a
p x1
prismatic member, such as a beam or column, is
p x 2
p y 2
represented by a straight element passing
p y1
through "the geometrical centroid" of the section
because the longitudinal strain under bending is zero at the geometrical centroid. Therefore, a
member does not develop axial deformation under bending moment acting along the member, nor
an axial force causes any member end rotation. In other words, there is no interaction between axial
and rotational response in a linearly elastic stage.
With flexural cracks forming along a reinforced concrete member due to bending, the neutral axis
shifts from the geometrical centroid into the compression side. The tensile strain is developed at the
geometric centroid of previously uncracked section, causing an elongation of the member measured
at the centroid of the section. Such elongation of a member is also measured in member tests under
bending in the laboratory. This phenomenon should be recognized. Very few model recognizes the
interaction of axial and bending response.
Section
Strain before
Cracking
Strain after
Cracking
In a nonlinear analysis of a frame structure, however, this axial and rotational interaction is
normally ignored. Therefore, member end moment-rotation relation and member end axial
force-elongation relation are treated separately; i.e., it is assumed that k12 = k 21 = 0 and
k13 = k31 = 0 .
Once the moment-axial force interaction is ignored, stiffness element k11 represents the axial
force-deformation relation of the reinforced concrete
Yielding
member under uniaxial loading and is determined
Stress
from the axial force-axial deformation relationship
observed in uni-axial tests. The relationship in tension
Ccompresson
is linear up to initial tensile cracking, and then the
stiffness gradually deteriorates with additional
cracking, followed by yielding of all longitudinal
Strain
reinforcement. The relationship in compression is
similar to that of concrete in compression. The axial Tension
stress-strain relation is normally considered to be
linear for a practical range of analysis, especially in
Yielding
the analysis of low-rise buildings, where axial stress
due to the overturning effect of earthquake forces is relatively small.
If the interaction of bending moment and axial force interaction, the member end moment and
2
rotation relation should be defined; i.e., stiffness elements k 22 , k23 , k 32 and k33 must be defined.
The symmetry of a stiffness matrix (the reciprocal theorem) gives k 23 = k 32 , and three independent
stiffness elements k 22 , k23 and k33 must be determined. The test of reinforced concrete members
is carried out under a prescribed loading history. It is not possible to vary the ratio of member end
moments because the combination is infinite. Therefore, the member end moments are chosen to be
same in the test, and the anti-symmetric bending moment distribution is developed in a specimen
with the inflection point at the mid-span. The member end moment and rotation relation may be
determined to define diagonal elements k 22 and k33 , but the off-diagonal element k23 may not be
defined. A member model is necessary to define the member stiffness matrix.
Moment
Yielding
e AB
mA
pAB
B
A
Cracking
mB=mA
Rotation
Member end moment-rotation relation from tests
y
z
z
Coordinate System of Fiber Model
The fiber model may be considered as a simple finite element method applied to the
one-dimensional continuum. A member coordinate system may consist of x-axis in the direction of
the member, y-axis in the vertical direction, and z-axis in the horizontal direction. A section is divided
into small elements (filaments or fibers) by lines parallel to the z-axis and y-axis. Each fiber
represents either concrete or steel reinforcement. Nonlinear uniaxial stress-strain relation of the
material is assigned to the center of each fiber. Shear deformation is normally ignored in this
formulation.
y
x ( y, z ) = 0 ( x) y z ( x) + z y ( x)
z
z
x ( y, z ) = Ext ( y, z ) x ( y, z )
Coordinate System
n( x) =
x ( y, z )dA
Section
Ext ( y, z ) x ( y, z )dA
Ext ( y, z ) { 0 ( x) y z ( x) + z y ( x)}dA
Ext ( y, z ) 0 ( x)dA
Section
Section
Section
Ext ( y, z ) y z ( x)dA +
Section
= 0 ( x)
Ext ( y, z ) z y ( x)dA
Section
Ext ( y, z )dA z ( x)
Ext ( y, z ) ydA + y ( x)
Section
Section
Ext ( y, z ) z dA
Section
Similarly, the incremental bending moment about y-axis is calculated by summing up the
contribution of fiber stresses to the moment;
m y ( x) =
x ( y, z ) zdA
Ext ( y, z ) ( y, z ) zdA
Ext ( y, z ) z 0 ( x)dA
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
= 0 ( x )
Ext ( y, z ) yz z ( x)dA +
Ext ( y, z ) z 2 y ( x)dA
Section
E ( y, z ) zdA z ( x)
t
x
Section
E ( y, z ) yzdA + y ( x)
t
x
Section
Ext ( y, z ) z 2 dA
Section
The incremental moment about z-axis is evaluated by summing up the moment contributions of
stresses in fiber elements;
mz ( x) =
x ( y, z ) ydA
Ext ( y, z ) ( y, z ) ydA
Ext ( y, z ) y 0 ( x)dA +
Section
Section
Section
Section
= 0 ( x)
Ext ( y, z ) y 2 z ( x)dA
Section
Ext ( y, z ) yz y ( x)dA
Section
E ( y, z ) ydA + z ( x)
t
x
Section
Section
E ( y, z ) y dA y ( x)
t
x
Ext ( y, z ) yz dA
Section
The instantaneous stiffness matrix [k s ( x)] relates the incremental internal forces {ss ( x)} and
t
Ext z 2 dA Ext yzdA
Ex zdA
t
t
E t zdA
Ex ydA
Ex dA
x
t
0 ( x)
E
dA
n( x) Ext ydA
x
Actual evaluation of section stiffness is carried out not by integration but by summing up the
contribution from small fiber segments. Zeris and Mahin (1988) pointed out that this formulation
sometimes causes a numerical problem once the maximum section capacity is reached. An iterative
approach is suggested.
The section stiffness may be defined by a hysteresis model once skeleton moment-curvature
relation is estimated under monotonically increasing curvature.
Member Stiffness Matrix: The
principle can be discussed,
without loosing generality, using
a two-dimensional plane frame
member under uniaxial bending
and deformation. A simple
beam is considered as a basic
statically determinate system.
mB , B
mA , A
A
p AB , eAB
The tangent stiffness matrix of the member relates the member end forces and displacements
without intermediate loading.
m A
A
t
mB = [k m ] B
p
e
AB
AB
(1) Stiffness Approach
t
Member stiffness matrix [km ] is evaluated by integrating the tangent section stiffness matrix
where [ B( x)] : matrix relating the section generalized strain increment vector to the member
deformation increment vector;
{ ( x)} = [ B( x)]{ }
For a linearly elastic prismatic member, the transverse incremental displacement is cubic
polynomials of the distance along the member axis, and matrix [ B ( x)] may be evaluated as
x
x
1 2(3 2) 2(3 1) 0
[ B( x)] =
l
l
0
l
0
0
For non-uniform distribution of stiffness, the evaluation of matrix [ B( x)] is the critical problem.
6
The main shortcoming of the stiffness-based elements is their inability to represent member
behavior near the peak resistance since there exists numerical instability problem. Therefore, the
member may be sub-divided into short segments, and simple flexibility distribution should be
assumed for each short segments. Mahasuverachai and Powell (1982) suggested the use of
flexibility-dependent shape functions that are continuously updated during the analysis.
(2) Flexibility Approach
For a statically determinate member such as a cantilever or a simple beam, section forces (e.g.,
axial force and bending moment) {s ( x)} along a member are precisely defined as a function of
member end forces {Q} .
{s ( x)} = [ N Q ( x)]{Q}
where [ N Q ( x)] : force interpolation functions which define section forces as a function of member
end forces. For a simply supported plane frame member, matrix [ N Q ( x)] is expressed as
x
1
[ NQ ] = l
x
l
0
0
1
[ F ]{Q} = {U }
where {U } : nodal displacement of the statically determinate member, and flexibility matrix [ F ] is
defined as
L
The flexibility matrix of a member is evaluated in discretized form. Therefore, the compatibility
between section {e( x)} and member end displacement {U } is maintained in an integral sense
(Coleman and Spacone, 2001);
L
{U } = [ N Q ( x)]{e( x)}dx
0
The draw back of the flexibility-based formulation is the implementation the flexibility relation in
existing stiffness-based analysis procedure.
The drawback of the fiber model is the difficulty in evaluating member tangent stiffness matrix.
The memory requirement is also significant to keep track of stress and strain levels in each fiber in
the analysis.
References:
Menegotto, M., and P. E. Pinto, Method of Analysis for Cyclically Loaded RC Plane Frames
Including Changes in Geometry and Non-elastic Behaviour of Elements under Combined Normal
Force and Bending, Preliminary Report, IABSSE, 1973, Vol. 13, pp. 15 - 22.
Aktan, A. E., et al., R/C Column Earthquake Response in Two Dimensions, Journal, Structures
Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. ST10, October 1974, 1999 - 2015.
7
Aziz, T. S., Inelastic Dynamic Analysis of Building Frames, Research Report R76-37, Department
of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1976.
Coleman, J., and E. Spacone, Localization Issues in Force-based Frame Elements, Journal,
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 11, November 2001, pp. 1257 - 1265.
Kaba, S. and S. A. Mahin, Refined Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Columns for Seismic Analysis,
EERC Report 84/03, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
1984.
Mahasuverachai, M., and G. H. Powell, Inelastic Analysis of Piping and Tubular Structures, EERC
Report 82-27, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1982.
Mark, K., Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames, Research Report R76-38,
Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1976.
Spacone, E., F. C. Filippou and F. F Taucer, Fiber Beam-column Model for Non-linear Analysis of
R/C Frames: Part I. Formulation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 25,
1996, pp. 711 - 725.
Spacone, E., F. C. Filippou and F. F Taucer, Fiber Beam-column Model for Non-linear Analysis of
R/C Frames: Part II. Applications, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 25,
1996, pp. 727 - 742.
Zeris, C. and S. A. Mahin, Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam-columns under uniaxial excitation,
Journal, Structures Division, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. ST4, April 1988, pp. 804 - 820.
Zeris, C., and S. A. Mahin, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected to Biaxial
Excitation, Journal, Structures Division, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. ST9, September 1991, pp. 2657 2673.
Rotational Spring
Rigid Element
Flexural Rigidity EI
Discrete Segment Model: A member is divided into short segments, each segment i with uniform
flexural rigidity EI i that varies with a stress history of the segment. Variation of stiffness along the
member can be easily handled by this model if the flexural rigidity can be estimated for each short
segment. Structural walls are often idealized by this model although the interaction of axial
deformation and flexure cannot be considered in this model; i.e., the elongation due to the shift of
neutral axis in the section cannot be considered. More computation effort is required in this model
due to the increased number of degrees of freedom.
A member is sub-divided into (n+1)
elements; element i has constant flexural
rigidity EI i and length xi . A common
k12 d 1
k 22 i d 2 i
[k11 ]i
[k12 ]i = [k 21 ]Ti
0
12 EI i
( xi ) 3
6 EI i
( xi ) 2
EAi
xi
0
p y 2
6 EI i
( x i ) 2
4 EI i
xi
0
12 EI i
( xi ) 3
6 EI i
( x i ) 2
where
EAi
x
i
= 0
EIi
p1 k11
=
p2 i k 21
px1
m z 1
6 EI i
( xi ) 2
2 EI i
xi
0
EIi, EAi
p y1
x i
p x 2 x
2
m z 2
[k 22 ]i
EAi
x
i
= 0
6 EI i
( xi ) 2
4 EI i
xi
0
12 EI i
( x i ) 3
6 EI i
( xi ) 2
{p2 }i ,{d 2 }i
Member i
{p1}i +1 ,{d1}i +1
Member i+1
{p} = [k ]{d }
p A k11A1
p A1
1 k 21
0
pi = 0
p n 0
p B 0
k12A1
k
+k
12
k 21
A1
22
0
12
11
12
12
i 1,i
22
+k
i ,i +1
11
0
0
k
0
n 1, n
22
+ k11nB
k 21nB
0 d A
0 d1
0
0 d i
0
k12nB d n
k 22nB d B
p e k ee k ei d e
pi k ie k ii d i
in which, {p e } and {d e } are forces and displacements at member ends A and B, {pi } and
{d i }
p
{p e } = A
p B
p1
{pi } = M
p
n
d
{d e } = A
d B
d1
{d i } = M
d
n
If intermediate loads are not considered along a member, the sum of internal forces should be
zero at intermediate joints;
{pi } = {0}
hence,
and
{d i } = [k ii ]1 [k ie ]{d e }
{pe } = ([k ee ] [k ei ][k ii ]1 [k ie ]){d e }
= [k ]{d e }
10
{d e }
displacement
is obtained:
{d i } = [k ii ]1 [k ie ]{d e }
Correction of Unbalanced Forces: The
F
structural analysis is based on (a) constitutive
relation of members, (b) equilibrium of forces F*
j+1
at joints, and (c) compatibility of displacement
at joints. It is generally assumed that the F
j+1
stiffness does not change during a small load
(displacement) increment. However, this
assumption is often violated and the Fj
force-deformation relationship deviates from
the linear instantaneous stiffness. If the
constitutive relation is to be satisfied, either
equilibrium or compatibility must be violated
at a joint at the next load (displacement)
increment.
p *j +1
F j +1
Correction of overshooting
F j +1 = k j D j p *j +1
kj
D j +1
Dj
D
Dj+1
*
e
p e k ee k ei d e p e*
*
=
pi k ie k ii d i pi
and {pi } = {0} because there acts no external load at the internal nodes. Hence,
{p } = [k ]{d } + [k ]{d }
{d } = [k ] ({p } [k ]{d })
*
i
ie
and,
ii
ii
*
i
ie
Application of Unit Load Method: If there are no external loads acting at internal nodes, the
stiffness matrix of a member can be formulated in a simpler manner using unit load method of
calculating displacement under a given loading set.
Suppose a member AB of length L is simply supported at the two ends subjected to incremental
member end moments m A and m B . The member is divided into n segments, not necessarily of
equal length. Length of segment i is xi , flexural rigidity EI i , and distance from A end to the
center of segment i is xi.
Incremental bending moment m x (positive for tension at bottom) at distance x is expressed as
11
x
x
m x = m A (1 ) + m B ( )
L
L
and incremental curvature x at the
center of segment i is
x =
m x
EI i
for ( xi
xi
x
) x ( xi + i )
2
2
Flexural Rigidity EI
mA
given as
mux = 1 +
m x
x
L
A = x mux dx
0
=
i
xi + xi / 2
mux dx
xi xi / 2
x =
m x
EI i
xi
xi
mA = 1
mux
xi + xi / 2
xi xi / 2
x
x
x
(1 + ){m A (1 ) + m B ( )} / EI i dx
L
L
L
m A xi + xi / 2
m B xi + xi / 2 x
x
x
=
(1 ) 2 dx
( )(1 )dx
x
x
x
x
/
2
/
2
EI i i i
L
EI i i i L
L
x mux dx =
xi + xi / 2
xi xi / 2
= f AAi m A + f ABi m B
12
mB
f AAi =
f ABi =
f BBi =
x
x
1 x
x
(1 ) 2 dx = i {(1 i ) 2 + ( i ) 2 }
xi xi / 2
12 L
L
EI i
L
1
EI i
xi + xi / 2
x x
x
x
( )(1 )dx = f BBi + i i
xi xi / 2 L
L
EI i L
1
EI i
xi + xi / 2
x x
1 x
x
( ) 2 dx = i {( i ) 2 + ( i ) 2 }
xi xi / 2 L
12 L
EI i L
1
EI i
xi + xi / 2
A = ( f AAi ) m A + ( f ABi ) m B
i
= f AA m A + f AB m B
Similarly, applying unit moment at end B, bending moment mux at distance x from end A;
mux =
x
L
and incremental rotation B at member end B is calculated using the unit load method:
L
B = x mux dx
o
=
i
xi + xi / 2
mux dx
xi xi / 2
= ( f BAi ) m A + ( f BBi ) m B
i
= f BA m A + f BB m B
where,
f BAi = f ABi
A f AA
=
B f BA
f AB m A
f BB m B
The stiffness relation at the member end can be expressed by inverting the flexibility relation:
m A k AA
=
m B k BA
k AB A
k BB B
in which
k AA =
f BB
2
f AA f BB f AB
k AB = k BA =
k BB =
f AB
2
f AA f BB f AB
f AA
2
f AA f BB f AB
The number of degrees of freedom of a member is normally reduce to three (two member end
rotations and an extension) using the static condensation technique so that the size of a structural
stiffness matrix is kept small.
Discrete Spring Model: Wen and Janssen (1965) presented a method of analysis for a plane frame
13
consisting of elasto-plastic segments. The mass and flexibility of a member were lumped at the
connecting points on a tributary basis. Powell (1975) suggested the use of a degrading stiffness
hysteresis model for rigid inelastic connecting springs. Shorter segments were recommended in a
region of high bending moment, and longer segments in a low bending moment region.
Flexibility relation of a simply supported
member consisting of short rigid segments
and rotational springs at internal joints is
expressed as;
A f AA
=
B f BA
y
Rotational Spring
f AB m A
f BB m B
Rigid Element
spring i
in which
xi 2
) fi
L
i
x
x
= f BA = ( i )(1 i ) f i
L
L
i
x
= ( i )2 fi
L
i
xi
f AA = (1
f AB
f BB
L
mB
mA
m(xi)
References:
Kaba, S. and S. A. Mahin, Refined modeling of reinforced concrete columns for seismic analysis,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, EERC Report
84-3, 1984.
Powell, G. H., "Supplement to Computer Program DRAIN-2D, Supplement to Report, DRAIN-2D
User's Guide, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
Wen, R. K., and J. G. Janssen, "Dynamic Analysis of Elasto-Inelastic Frames," Proceedings, Third
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand, January 1965, Vol. II,
pp. 713-729.
Zeris, C. and S.A. Mahin, Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam-columns under Uniaxial
Excitation, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 4, April 1988, pp. 804 - 820.
Zeris, C., and S.A. Mahin, Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected to Biaxial
Excitation, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 9, September 1991, pp.
2657 - 2673.
14
Elastic Response
Inelastic Response
This model, called one-component model, was extended for the general use in a nonlinear frame
analysis under earthquake excitation by Giberson (1967); he used nonlinear rotational springs at two
member ends instead of rigid-plastic hinges. All the inelastic deformation of a member was assumed
to concentrate at the member ends, and the middle part was assumed to remain elastic.
mA
A
kA
Elastic Element
kB
B
B
Elastic
Deformation
mB
Spring Rotation
A = Ae + Ap
B = Be + Bp
For a simply supported elastic element:
L
Ae 3EI
=
Be L
6 EI
L
6 EI m A
L m B
3EI
in which EI: flexural rigidity of section in the elastic region, L: member length. For each inelastic
rotational spring:
15
Ap =
m A
kA
Bp =
m B
kB
where kA and kB: instantaneous (tangent) spring constant of rotational springs at A end and B end,
respectively. Therefore, the flexibility relation is written in the form;
1
L
+
A
3EI k A
=
B L
6 EI
L
6 EI m A
1
L
+ m B
3EI k B
6 EI
6 EI
/ k A , and s B =
/ kB ,
L
L
1 m A
A
L 2 + s A
2 + s B mb
B 6 EI 1
Let s A =
m A
2 + s B
(6 EI / L)
m B ( 2 + s A )( 2 + s B ) 1 1
1 A
2 + s A B
The spring properties may be determined by assuming the length of a yield hinge zone and a
uniform curvature distribution over the hinge region.
In many cases, however, it becomes more desirable to
faithfully simulate a member end moment-rotation relation
of a member observed in the laboratory under a
prescribed loading condition. Such a relation is idealized
and given by a hysteresis model. Therefore, it is more
'
'
convenient to use an instantaneous stiffness k A and k B
of the member end moment-rotation relation, in which
member end rotation includes elastic rotation (=
m A 6 EI / L ) at the member end under anti-symmetric
moment distribution; consider m A = m B in the flexibility
relation above,
A = (
L
1
L
+ ) m A
mB (= mA )
3EI k A
6 EI
=(
L
1
+ ) m A
6 EI k A
mA
A =
mA
kA'
A = (
L
mA
6EI
1
)m A
k A'
Therefore,
L
1
1
=
+
'
k A 6 EI k A
16
6 EI
6 EI
/ k ' A and s ' A =
/ k'A .
L
L
6 EI
1 + s B'
1 A
m A
L
=
'
'
1 + s A' B
m B (1 + s A )(1 + s B ) 1 1
A major advantage of the model is that inelastic member-end deformation depends solely on the
moment acting at the end so that any moment-rotation hysteresis relation can be assigned to the
spring. The stiffness of an inelastic spring is normally defined by assuming an anti-symmetric
moment distribution along a member with the inflection point at mid-span.
This fact is also a weakness of the model because the member-end rotation should be dependent
on the curvature distribution along the member, hence dependent on moments at both member ends.
Consider two cases of moment distribution along a member AB with corresponding to a curvature
distribution shown below;
The inelastic rotations at the A end are given by
shaded areas. For the same moments at A end,
Case II causes larger inelastic rotation at A end.
Consequently, this simple model does not simulate
actual member behavior if the member moment
distribution
changes
significantly
during
an
earthquake. Furthermore, it is not rational to lump all
inelastic deformation of a reinforced concrete
member at member ends.
Therefore, the moment-rotation relation at a
member end using this member model tends to
deviate from the actual relation if the stress
distribution becomes different from that assumed in
determining the spring properties.
References:
Berg, G. V., and D. A. DaDeppo, "Dynamic Analysis of Elasto-Plastic Structures," Proceedings,
Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 86, EM2, April 1960, pp. 35-58.
Giberson, M. F., "The Response of Nonlinear Multi-story Structures subjected to Earthquake
Excitation," EERL Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, 1967.
Roufaiel, M.S.L., and C. Meyer, Analytical Modeling of Hysteretic Behavior of R/C Frames, Journal
17
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 3, March 1987, pp. 429-444.
Suko, M., and P. F. Adams, "Dynamic Analysis of Multi-bay Multi-story Frames," Journal, Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. ST10, October 1971, pp. 2519-2533.
18
Elements I and II
Member end moment
(a) Member
Element II
Element I
Member Rotation
Member rotation
(a) Member
m A1 p1 EI 4 2 A
L 2 4 B
m B1
For an element with flexural rigidity p2 EI and a plastic hinge at A end, the moment at A end is
known to be zero;
m A 2 p 2 EI 0 0 A
L 0 3 B
m B 2
19
Similarly, for an element with flexural rigidity p3 EI and a plastic hinge at B end;
m A3 p3 EI 3 0 A
L 0 0 B
m B 3
For an element with plastic hinges at the two ends, the stiffness matrix is zero;
m A4 0 0 A
m B 4 0 0 B
From the equilibrium of forces;
m A = m A1 + m A2 + m A3 + m A4
m B = m B1 + m B 2 + m B 3 + m B 4
2 p1
m A EI ( 4 p1 + 3 p3 )
A
2 p1
( 4 p1 + 3 p2 ) B
m B L
Note that p 2 p3 = 0 ; an element having a plastic hinge at A end and another element having a
plastic hinge at B end cannot exist simultaneously; i.e., either p 2 or p3 or both should be zero at
a stage.
The multi-component model appears to have a merit; rotation at one end of a member depends
on both member-end moments. In other words, the moment distribution along a member can be
approximately reflected in the analysis. However, the stiffness of the multi-parallel components must
be evaluated under a certain assumed moment distribution. Therefore, the stiffness parameters are
valid only under such a moment distribution, and are bound to be approximate when the moment
distribution becomes drastically different in the analysis.
Giberson (1967) discussed the advantage and disadvantage of the one-component and the
two-component models, and concluded that the one-component model was more versatile than the
two-component model because the two-component model was restricted to the bilinear hysteresis
characteristics.
The ratios p's of element stiffness may be varied with damage if a more general hysteresis
relation is desired for a member. Takizawa (1976) suggested the ratios p's be determined as a
function of member end stiffness under an anti-symmetric moment distribution. The flexibility matrix
including shear deformation is given below:
A f11 f 12 m A
B f 21 f 22 m B
where, for f B < f A ( p2 = 0) :
3
(1 ) 2
f11 =
fA +
fB
2+
(1 + 2 )( 2 + )
(1 )
f12 = f 21 =
fB
1 + 2
2+
f 22 =
fB
1 + 2
and for f B > f A ( p3 = 0) ,
20
2+
fA
1 + 2
(1 )
f12 = f 21 =
fA
1 + 2
f11 =
f 22 =
(1 ) 2
3
fA +
fB
(1 + 2 )( 2 + )
2+
fA =
A
m A
fB =
B
m B
References:
Aoyama, H., and T. Sugano, "A Generalized Inelastic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures
based on the Tests of Members," Recent Researches of Structural Mechanics, Contribution in
Honor of the 60-th Birthday of Professor Y. Tsuboi, Uno Shoten, Tokyo, 1968, pp. 15-30.
Clough, R. W., K. L. Benuska and E. L. Wilson, "Inelastic Earthquake response of tall buildings,"
Proceedings, Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, Vol. II,
Session II, 1965, pp. 68-89.
Giberson, M. F., "The Response of Nonlinear Multi-story Structures subjected to Earthquake
Excitation," EERL Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology, 1967.
Takizawa, T., "Notes on Some Basic Problems in Inelastic Analysis of Planar R/C Structures (Part
1)," Transactions, Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 240, February 1976, pp. 51-62.
21
A f AA
=
B f BA
f AB m A
f BB m B
in which,
x
(1 ) 2
L dx + 1
=
EI ( x )
L2
0
L
f AA
GA / ( x )dx
0
x
x
( )(1 )
L
L dx + 1
=
EI ( x )
L2
0
L
f AB = f BA
L
f BB =
0
x
( )2
L dx + 1
EI ( x )
L2
GA / ( x )dx
0
GA / ( x )dx
0
Takizawa (1973, 1976) assumed a moment-rotation relation at the member end under the
anti-symmetric moment distribution to determine the flexibility coefficients f AA , f AB and f BB ,
rather than flexural flexibility.
Flexibility relation of a member for incremental member end rotations A and B and
moments m A and m B is given in the following form by ignoring shear deformation;
22
f B fo
f AB
A 2 f A +
3
=
B ( f A + f B ) + 2 f AB
( f A + f B ) 2 f AB
+
2
3 m A
f fo
2 fB + A
f AB m B
3
f AB = ( f A f o )( f B f o ) sgn(m A m B )
This is an interesting concept in analyzing an inelastic member. However, the parabolic flexibility
distribution may not describe the actual concentration of deformation at critical section (normally at
member ends) due to flexural yielding and deformation attributable to slippage of longitudinal
reinforcement within a beam-column connection. The usage of inelastic springs at locations of
concentrated deformation in conjunction with this model may be a useful solution.
References:
Takizawa, H., "Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings under Strong Earthquake Motion (in
Japanese)," Concrete Journal, Japan Concrete Institute, Vol. 11, No. 2, February 1973, pp.
10-21.
Takizawa, H., "Notes on Some Basic Problems in Inelastic Analysis of Planar R/C Structures (Part
1)," Transactions, Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 240, February 1976, pp. 51-62.
23
A column was idealized by an elastic line element b with two multi-spring elements a and c;
member end nodes are numbered A and B. The node between the top multi-spring element and the
elastic element is C and the node between the bottom multi-spring element and the elastic element
is D. For each element, the start and terminal ends 1 and 2 are assigned in the direction of A to B.
z
A
a
C z
D
c
x
24
Psy =
Ag sy
4
ld =
Ab f y
db u
where d b : diameter of bar, Ab : cross sectional area of bar, f y : yield stress of bar. The pullout
deformation d sy of the longitudinal reinforcement at yielding is estimated by assuming a linear
distribution of steel strain over the development length l d ;
d sy =
where,
1
ld y
2
The elastic stiffness k se of steel spring is the ratio of yield force to the yield displacement;
25
kse =
As f y
d sy
where
Pb
concrete spring.
Mb
Cross Section
Aci =
Pb
2(0.85 B )
d=
2M b
( Asi f y ) + 0.85 B Aci
The axial force-bending moment interaction diagram may be represented by four zones. The
equations for the four zonse may be expressed as follows;
(a) Zone 1: Tension failure zone (TAB)
P = 2( Ps1 y + Ps 3 y )
2M y
P = [2 +
Pc 0 y
2( Ps1 y + Ps 3 y )
Pc 0 y
2
+ [1 +
]( Pc 2 y + Ps 2 y + Pc 4 y + Ps 4 y ) )
Pc 0 y
2( Ps1 y + Ps 3 y )
2M y
d
P = [2 +
Pc 0 y
2
Pc 0 y
2( Ps1 y + Pc1 y + Ps 3 y + Pc 3 y )
+ [1 +
]( Pc 2 y + Ps 2 y + Pc 4 y + Ps 4 y )
Pc 0 y
2( Ps1 y + Pc1 y + Ps 3 y + Pc 3 y )
2M y
d
The interaction curve of the model deviated from the interaction curve due to the use of fewer
number of springs. With an increase in the number of springs in a multi-spring element, the
simulation of the interaction behavior is improved, and the determination of the stiffness properties of
each spring is simplified.
Jiang and Saiidi (1990) proposed to combine the
hysteresis properties of the concrete and steel
springs in each corner to simplify the model .
because the yield deformations of the concrete
and steel springs located in the same quadrant is
identical.
F
Fsy+Fcy
-dsy
s k2
k2
s k2
k1
dsy
-Fsy
Force-deformation relation
(Jiang and Saiidi, 1990)
27
Li Model: Li et al. (1988, 1990) simplified the method to determine spring properties and modified
the hysteretic properties of the concrete and steel springs; they demonstrated the reliability of the
model with respect to column test results using simple five spring models.
pz
Multi-spring element
Elastic element
28
The axial force fi and deformation di of each axial spring are given as follows;
f i = i Ai
di = i pz
where
i and i : stress and strain at spring point i, and Ai . area of sub-area i. Multi-linear
stress-strain relation may be used for concrete and steel springs. Some adjustment is required for
the stress-strain relation of a steel spring to take into account the stiffness degradation, for example,
due to the bond slip along the longitudinal reinforcement or the pullout deformation of the
longitudinal reinforcement from the anchorage zone. The yield deformation may be increased by a
factor ;
ho
1.0
= 1.0 + D
ho
D
for
ho
> 1.0
D
= 1.0
for
ho
1.0
D
29
The flexural and axial deformations may be considered in the middle elastic part.
A common member coordinate system is used to define forces and displacements, with x-axis in
the direction of the member and y- and z-axes in the principal directions of the section. Forces and
displacements at node J are denoted by {P} J and {D} J , whereas the start and terminal end
forces and displacements of an element i are denoted by { p1 }i and { p 2 }i , {d1 }i and {d 2 }i .
The incremental stiffness relation of a multi-spring model i (i = a or c) may be expressed;
p1x
p 2 x
m1 y = m2 y
m
m
1z i
2 z i
k xx
= k yx
k zx
in which,
k xy
k yy
k zy
A
a
C
k xz d1x d 2 x
k yz ( 1 y 2 y )
k zz 1z i 2 z i
i
k xx = k i
i
k xy = k i zi
k xz = k i y i
k yy = k i zi2
k yz = k i yi zi
i
k zz = k i y i2
i
and k i : tangent stiffness of spring i, (yi, zi): coordinates of spring i with respect to the centroid of
section, p x : axial force, m y : bending moment about y-axis, m z : bending moment about z-axis,
d x : axial deformation at the centroid, y : rotation about y-axis, z : rotation about z-axis.
It should be noted that the following relations hold because no length is considered in multi-spring
elements a and c;
p 2 y
p1 y
p2 z a
p1z a
p 2 y
p1 y
p 2 z c
p1z c
d 2 y
d 1 y
d 2 z a
d 1z a
d 2 y
d1 y
d 2 z c
d1z c
and
{p1}a = [k ]a {d1}a [k ]a {d 2 }a
{p2 }a = [k ]a {d1}a + [k ]a {d 2 }a
{p1}c = [k ]c {d1}c [k ]c {d 2 }c
{p2 }c = [k ]c {d1}c + [k ]c {d 2 }c
30
For an elastic element of length L, flexural rigidity EI, axial rigidity EA, and shear rigidity GA/, a
stiffness relation can be formulated in the form:
{p2 }b = [k 21 ]b {d1}b + [k 22 ]b {d 2 }b
T
and {d xk , d yk , yk , d zk , zk } .
T
{D} A = {d1}a
{D}B = {d 2 }c
{D}C = {d 2 }a = {d1}b
{D}D = {d 2 }b = {d1}c
Equilibrium of external forces and the sum of internal element end forces at a node;
{P} A = {p1}a
{P}B = {p2 }c
{P}C = {p2 }a + {p1}b
{P}D = {p2 }b + {p1}c
Special care must be exercised in formulating a member stiffness matrix with four nodes (A, B, C
and D) to include the following conditions;
(a) for displacements:
D y
D y
d1 y
d 2 y
=
=
=
D z A D z C d1z a d 2 z a
D y
D y
d1 y
d 2 y
=
=
=
D z D D z B d1z c d 2 z c
and (b) for forces:
p 2 y
p1 y
p2 z a
p1z a
p 2 y
p1 y
p 2 z c
p1z c
References:
Lai, S.-S., G. T. Will and S. Otani, "Model for Inelastic Bi-axial Bending of Concrete Member,"
Journal, Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. ST11, November 1984, pp. 2563-2584.
Jiang, Y., and S. M. Saiidi, "Four-Spring Element for Cyclic Response of R/C Columns," Journal,
Structural Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. ST4, April 1990, pp. 1018-1029.
Li, K.-N., S. Otani and H. Aoyama, "Reinforced Concrete Columns under Varying Axial Load and
B-directional Lateral Load Reversals," Proceedings, Ninth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, August 1988, Vol. VIII, pp. 537-542.
Li, K.-N., S. Otani and H. Aoyama, "Study on Reinforced Concrete Columns subjected to Varying
Axial Load and Bi-directional Horizontal Earthquake Loads (in Japanese)," Report, Aoyama
Laboratory, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, March
1990.
Li, Kang-Ning, S. Otani and H. Aoyama, R/C Columns under Axial and Bi-directional Lateral Loads,
Proceedings, Mechanics Computing in 1990s and Beyond, ASCE, Vol. 2, Structural and
Material Mechanics, May 1991, pp. 681 - 685.
31
kA
Axial Spring
Shear Spring
kB
Flexibility of springs
0
0
e AB
p AB
EA
f + m A
A = 0 2 f + f A +
0
f +
2 f + f B + m B
B
h
1
1
in which f =
, fA =
, fB =
, =
, EI : flexural rigidity of the middle elastic
6 EI
kA
kB
GAw h
GAw
region, h : clear height of the wall panel,
: shear rigidity of wall section including shape factor
A rigid zone, length equal to the one-half width of a wall, must be considered at the end of a
girder connected to the structural wall.
Distributed flexibility model may be used to represent a distribution of damage for a wall. Shear
deformation of a wall needs be considered. A wall may be sub-divided into a short segment (the
discrete element model) to reflect the distribution of the damage.
The problem of representing a wall by a single line member at the center is that the three
dimensional effect of a flexural wall cannot be represented; i.e., the axial elongation of a wall at the
centroid due to the shift of the neutral axis after flexural cracking cannot be modeled. The boundary
girders connected on both sides of a wall displace the same amount in the vertical direction at the
wall faces.
py
px
Rigid Beam
EA1
EA2
Rigid Beam
L
32
mz
1 L '3
h3
2 L2 ( EA + EA )
1
2
dx
0
d y =
z
1 h2
EA2 L2
0
L '3
EA1
h
h3
2 EA2 L '3
+
EA1 EA2
0
1 h2
EA2 L2
px
p
0
y
mz
2h
EA2 L2
Boundary Column Model: A structural wall, especially behaving dominantly in flexure, is modeled
by three springs at the boundary columns and at the wall center (Otani et al., 1985). The two outside
springs are provided with the axial stiffness of the boundary columns. The central element
represents the vertical uni-axial, lateral shear and flexural rotational characteristics of the wall panel;
a rotational spring is placed only at the bottom of the central element. The girder within a wall is
considered to be rigid.
0
e AB a
A = 0 2 f +
0 f +
B
p AB
f + m A
2 f + f B + m B
h
h
, f =
, fB :
in which = a1 + a 2 + a w , aw =
EAw
6 EI w
GAw
,
: shear
flexibility of rotational spring, =
GAw h
Rigid Girder
aw
a1
a2
kB
rigidity of the wall section, taking stiffness degradation with shear cracking into account, EI w :
elastic flexural rigidity of wall panel section. Forces and displacements are defined at the mid-point
of the rigid girders.
The stiffness of the wall model is formulated by including the stiffness contribution from the
boundary columns.
Reference:
Structure, US-Japan Research, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1985, pp. 203-239.
Vulcano, A., and V. V. Bertero, Analytical Models for Predicting the Lateral Response of RC Shear
Walls, University of California at Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report
No. EERC 87-19, 1987.
34
m A EI 4 p2
m B L 2 p2
4 p2 + 3 p1 B
2 p2
Plastic hinge
p1 EI
p2 EI
mA
mB
(2) The incremental moment-and rotation relations are given for anti-symmetric bending moment
distribution below. Namely, the relations were obtained by applying equal incremental moments
m A at the two ends of a simply supported beam and measuring resultant incremental member
end rotations A at A end. Similarly, equal incremental member end moments m B were
applied to a simple beam and incremental member end rotation B was measured at B end. The
flexibility at the member ends is defined from the incremental relation as follows;
fA =
1 A
=
k A mA
fB =
1 B
=
k B mB
mA
mB
mB
mA
kB
kA
A
B
Determine the stiffness ratios p1 and p 2 which satisfy the flexibility f A and f B at the two
member ends as defined above.
35
[Solution]
For a two-component model with a plastic hinge at left end, the tangent stiffness relation is given as
m A EI 4 p2
m B L 2 p2
2 p 2 A
4 p2 + 3 p1 B
A L
4 p2 + 3 p1
1
=
2
B EI (4 p2 + 3 p1 )4 p2 4 p2 2 p2
2 p2 mA
4 p2 mB
A =
L
1
(4 p2 + 3 p1 2 p2 )mA
EI (4 p2 + 3 p1 )4 p2 4 p22
L
1
(2 p2 + 3 p1 )mA
EI (4 p2 + 3 p1 )4 p2 4 p22
L 2 p2 + 3 p1
mA
EI 12( p1 + p2 ) p2
mA
kA
B =
1
L
(2 p2 + 4 p2 )mB
EI (4 p2 + 3 p1 )4 p2 4 p22
1
L
(2 p2 )mB
EI (4 p2 + 3 p1 )4 p2 4 p22
1
L
mB
EI 6( p1 + p2 )
mB
kB
p2 =
L
k AkB
2 EI k A + 2k B
p1 =
L
k kA
kB B
3EI k A + 2k B
36
py
px
Rigid Beam
EA1
EA2
Rigid Beam
L
37
mz
[Solution]
This structure is statically indeterminate by one degree.
The reaction at the support at lower right is selected as
an indeterminate force and is released to make a
statically determinate structure.
B
C
py
mz
px
Rigid Beam
EA1
EA2
EA2
Rigid Beam
L
Axial forces in the members are calculated for unit force
applied separately in the horizontal, vertical and
rotational directions at the center of the top rigid beam, and also for a unit applied in the horizontal
direction at the released support. Axial force is positive when in tension.
Px=1.0
B
C
0
0
0
Mz=1.0
Py=1.0
1
cos
h
L
1
2
1
2
NH0
h
L
1
cos
1
L
NM0
NV0
B
1
L
1
cos
h
L
N=1
Nu
Horizontal displacement is calculated in the direction of the indeterminate force under the unit force
using the unit load method.
L
Member
L
L
L
NH 0
NV 0 N M 0
Nu
L 2
NV 0 N u
N M 0 Nu
N H 0 Nu
Nu
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
AB
h
EA2
1
2
AC
L'
EA1
1
cos
1
L
h2 1
EA2 2 L
h2 1
EA2 L2
L'
1
EA1 cos 2
h
L
1
cos
38
h3 1
EA2 L2
L'
1
EA1 cos 2
BD
L'
EA1
h
EA2
CD
Total
where L ' =
h
L
1
2
1
L
1
cos
h
L'
1
EA1 cos 2
h3 1
EA2 L2
h2 1
EA2 2 L
h2 1
EA2 L2
h3 1
EA2 L2
1 L '3
h3
+
(
)
L2 EA1 EA2
h2 1
EA2 L
2 L '3
h3
+
(
)
L2 EA1 EA2
L2 + h 2
From the displacement boundary condition at support D, the horizontal reaction N1 at the support
due to unit horizontal load acting at the top beam is calculated;
1 L '3
h3
2 L '3
h3
(
+
)
+
N
(
+
) = 0.0
1 2
L2 EA1 EA2
L EA1 EA2
1
N1 =
2
The horizontal reaction N1 due to unit vertical force is calculated;
h 2 1 2 L '3
h3
) N1 = 0.0
+ 2(
+
EA2 L L EA1 EA2
h2
EA2
L
h3
2 L '3
+
EA1 EA2
The horizontal reaction N1 due to unit moment is calculated;
N1 =
0+
2 L '3
h3
(
) N1 = 0.0
+
L2 EA1 EA2
N1 = 0.0
Therefore, the axial forces in he brace members due to unit load applied at the top beam are
expressed as;
Px=1.0
Mz=1.0
Py=1.0
C
0
h
2L
1
2 cos
NH
1
2 cos
D
0.5
1 h
N1
2 L
h
2L
A
1 h
N1
2 L
N1
cos
N1
cos
NV
1
L
1
L
D
A
NM
h2
EA2
0.0
L
N1 =
h3
2 L '3
+
EA1 EA2
Calculation of displacement due to unit force applied at the center of top beam. Note that a unit force
in the direction of desired displacement may be applied to the original structure, but unit forces in the
direction of applied forces can be applied to the statically determinate structure.
39
Px=1.0
Mz=1.0
Py=1.0
C
0
h
2L
2 cos
1
2 cos
h
2L
1 h
N1
2 L
NH0
1 h
N1
2 L
N1
cos
N1
cos
N1 =
Px=1.0
D
0.0
h2
EA2
L
h3
2 L '3
+
EA1 EA2
Mz=1.0
C
0
0
0
1
cos
h
L
1
2
1
2
NHu
1
L
Py=1.0
1
L
NM0
NV0
0.5
1
L
1
L
D
NMu
NVu
(1) Horizontal displacement d x at the top beam due to horizontal force px , vertical force p y and
moment mz acting at the top beam.
Member
AB
AC
BD
CD
Total
NM 0
Nu
L
N H 0 Nu
EA
L
NV 0 N u
EA
L
N M 0 Nu
EA
1
L
h
2L
h2 1
EA2 4 L
h2 1
EA2 2 L2
L'
1
EA1 2 cos 2
1
L
1
2 cos
1
2 cos
h
2L
1 L '3
h3
(
+
)
2 L2 EA1 EA2
L
EA
h
EA2
NH 0
NV 0
1
2
L'
EA1
L'
EA1
h
EA2
1
cos
h
L
1
2
dx =
h3 1
EA2 2 L2
1 L '3
h3
h2 1
(
+
)
p
mz
x
2 L2 EA1 EA2
EA2 L2
40
h2 1
EA2 4 L
0
h2 1
EA2 2 L2
h2 1
EA2 L2
(2) Vertical displacement d y at the top beam due to horizontal force px , vertical force p y and
moment mz acting at the top beam.
Member
L
NH 0
NV 0 N
M0
EA
h
EA2
L'
EA1
L'
EA1
h
EA2
AB
AC
BD
CD
Total
Nu
L
N H 0 Nu
EA
L
NV 0 N u
EA
1 h
N1
2 L
h 1 h
( N1 )
2 EA2 2 L
N1
cos
N1
cos
L ' N1
EA1 cos 2
h h2
h
( 2 N1 )
EA2 L
2L
h 1 h
( N1 )
2 EA2 2 L
h 1
h
( N1 )
EA2 2 L L2
L ' N1
+
EA1 cos 2
h 1 h
( N1 )
EA2 2 L
1
2
1
cos
h
L
1
2
1
L
1 h
N1
2 L
1
L
h h2
h
( 2 N1 )
2L
EA2 L
N1 =
h2
EA2
L
h3
2 L '3
+
EA1 EA2
L ' N1
h h2
h
h 1 h
+
dy = {
( 2 N1 )} px +
( N1 ) p y
2
EA1 cos EA2 L
2L
EA2 2 L
L ' N1
h h2
h
( 2 N1 )
+
2
EA1 cos EA2 L
2L
N1 L '3
h3
h h
)
= 2(
+
L EA1 EA2
EA2 2 L
=
h2
EA2
L
h3
1 L '3
1 h2
(
)
+
h3 L2 EA1 EA2
EA2 2 L
2 L '3
+
EA1 EA2
L h2
1 h2
=0
2 EA2 EA2 2 L
Therefore,
41
L
N M 0 Nu
EA
h 1
h
( N1 )
EA2 2 L L2
dy =
h 1 h
( N1 ) p y
EA2 2 L
h2
EA2
h 1 hL
(
) py
h3
EA2 2 L 2 L '3
+
EA1 EA2
h3
EA2
h
(1 3
) py
L'
h3
2 EA2
+
EA1 EA2
L '3
EA1
h
py
h3
2 EA2 L '3
+
EA1 EA2
(3) Rotation
z at the top beam due to horizontal force px , vertical force p y and moment mz
z =
L
EA
h
EA2
L'
EA1
L'
EA1
h
EA2
-
L
NV 0 N u
EA
L
N M 0 Nu
EA
h
2 EA2 L
h
EA2 L2
NV 0
1
2
1
cos
h
L
1
2
1
L
1
L
h2
EA2 L2
h
2 EA2 L
h
EA2 L2
1 h2
EA2 L2
2h
EA2 L2
NM 0
1
L
Nu
L
N H 0 Nu
EA
NH 0
1
L
1 h2
2h
px +
mz
2
EA2 L
EA2 L2
42
1 L '3
h3
2 L2 ( EA + EA )
1
2
dx
0
d y =
z
1 h2
EA2 L2
0
L '3
EA1
h
h3
2 EA2 L '3
+
EA1 EA2
0
1 h2
EA2 L2
px
p
0
y
mz
2h
EA2 L2
where L ' = ( L + h ) 2
2
43
Free surface
Rocking
Sway
kp =
Free surface
Ap E p
No mass
= 0.014
l
+ 0.78
D
(b) driving PC (precast prestressed concrete) pile or HPC (high strength precast prestressed
concrete) pile:
= 0.013
l
+ 0.61
D
= 0.031
l
0.15
D
44
l
+ 0.39
D
= 0.009
= 0.011
l
+ 0.36
D
The above expressions tend to give small vertical stiffness of a pile foundation.
The vertical stiffness of a pile may be calculated by considering a pile being modeled by a single
line member with a series of vertical friction springs attached along the depth and a vertical spring at
the bottom of the pile. The friction spring properties may be determined for the displacement.
Sway-rocking Model: A sway-rocking model of a large structure may be formulated by the dynamic
ground compliance proposed by T. Kobori for square foundation.
The effective shear modulus G0 is estimated from shear wave velocity Vs and unit weight per
volume
G0 =
Vs2
Ge = G0 / 2
a0 = d
Ge
Non-dimensional frequency a0
Non-dimensional frequency a0
The equivalent spring constants K eS and K eR for sway and rocking are evaluated from charts
45
for longitudinal dimension 2c and transverse dimension 2b. Spring constants K S and K R for
rocking and sway springs and associated damping factors hS and hR are evaluated as;
K S = K eS d Ge
K R = K eR d 3
hS =
1 a0 CeS
2 K eS
hR =
1 a0 CeR
2 K eR
Ge
3
Reference:
Japan Road Association, "Standard Specifications for Design of Road Bridge and Commentary, Part
4: Underground Structures (in Japanese)," revised in February 1990.
46
amplitude,
(2) Small deflection amplitude
excursion must be placed after a large
amplitude excursion to study the
slip-type behavior
A lateral load-deflection relation of a
reinforced concrete member was
obtained from the test of a slender
column (Otani and Cheung, 1981). The
behavior was dominantly by flexure
although flexural cracks started to
incline due to the presence of high
shear stresses before flexural yielding.
The yielding of the longitudinal
reinforcement was observed in cycle 3.
The general hysteretic characteristics
can be summarized as follows:
(a) Stiffness changed due to the flexural cracking of concrete and the tensile yielding of the
longitudinal reinforcement (cycle 1);
(b) When a deflection reversal was repeated at the same newly attained maximum deformation
amplitude, the loading stiffness in the second cycle was noticeably lower than that in the first cycle,
although the resistance at the peak displacement was almost identical (cycles 3 and 4). This
reduction in stiffness is attributable to the formation of new cracks during loading cycle 3, and also to
a reduced stiffness of the longitudinal reinforcement in cycle 4 due to the Bauschinger effect.
(c) Average peak-to-peak stiffness of a complete cycle decreases with previous maximum
displacement. Note that the peak-to-peak stiffness of cycle 5 is significantly smaller than that of cycle
2, although the displacement amplitudes of the two cycles are comparable. The peak-to-peak
stiffness of cycle 5 is closer to that of cycles 3 and 4;
(d) The hysteresis characteristics of reinforced concrete are dependent on the loading history,
and
(e) The resistance at the peak deflection is almost the same for the two successive cycles in the
member dominated by flexural behavior.
A hysteresis model of a reinforced concrete "flexural" member must be able to represent the
above characteristics. The skeleton curve is similar to an "envelope curve" of a force-deformation
relation under load reversals. The state of the art is not sufficient to determine the ultimate point, at
the deformation of which the resistance of a member starts to decay. The force-deformation relation
after the onset of strength decay is normally not modeled because the behavior is strongly
dependent on a particular local deterioration of materials.
If the reinforced concrete is subjected to
high shear stress reversals, or if the
slippage of the reinforcement from concrete
within the anchorage area occurs, the
force-deflection curve exhibits a pronounced
"pinching". The pinching behavior is also
observed;
(a) in a "flexural" member when the
amount of longitudinal reinforcement differs
significantly for the tension and compression
sides at the critical sections, typically in a
girder with monolithically cast slabs,
(b) at a member end where additional
deformation may be caused by anchorage
slip of longitudinal reinforcement within the
adjacent member or connection, and
Hysteresis of slip type (Bertero and Popov, 1977)
2
(c) in a member where bond splitting cracks develop along the longitudinal reinforcement.
Because such hysteresis relationship is highly dependent on loading history and structural
properties of the member, a general hysteresis model is difficult to formulate; or the parameters of
hysteresis models cannot be analytically determined by the properties of the member. In the design
of earthquake resistant structures, the pinching type behavior is generally thought to be undesirable
because small hysteresis energy can be dissipated by the behavior. Therefore, a proper design care
must be exercised to reduce such pinching behavior due to shear and bond deterioration.
Many hysteresis models have been developed in the past. Some hysteresis models are elaborate,
and include many hysteresis rules; others are simple. The complicatedness of a hysteresis model
indicates a large memory to store the hysteresis rule program in a computer. It does not lead to a
longer computation time because the complicatedness of a hysteresis model requires simply many
branches in a computer program, and only a few branches are referred to for a step of response
computation.
A class of hysteresis models, in which the unloading and reloading relation is defined by
enlarging the skeleton curve by a factor of two, are called "Masing type." Some examples of Masing
type models are shown below:
Eh =
W
2 Fm Dm
po
k
Dm =
1
{1 (
) } + 4h 2 ( ) 2
n
n
x(t ) = Dm sin( t + )
The energy dissipated W by viscous damper per cycle is
Tn
W = (c
0
n
dx dx
2
)( )dt = c Dm 2 cos 2 ( t + )dt
dt dt
0
= c Dm
= 2 h mk Dm
where m, c, k ,: mass, damping coefficient and stiffness of an SDF system, h : damping factor
2
(=
(=
c
2 mk
m
), n : circular frequency of the system
k
k
).
m
At the resonant condition ( = n ), the energy dissipated per cycle can be expressed
W = 2 h k Dm
h=
k =
2 k Dm
W
2 Fm Dm
Fm
Dm
The equivalent damping factor should not be confused with a damping factor of a viscously
damped system because the equivalent damping factor is not relevant in random oscillation.
References:
Bertero, V. V., and E. P. Popov, "Seismic Behavior of Ductile Moment Resisting Reinforced
Concrete Frames," ACI SP-53, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1977, pp. 247-291.
Comite Euro-International du Beton: RC Frames under Earthquake Loading, State of the Art Report,
Thomas Telford, 1996.
Otani, S, "Hysteresis Models of Reinforced Concrete for Earthquake Response Analysis," Journal,
Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Vol. XXXVI, No. 2, 1981, pp. 125-156.
Otani, S., and V. W.-T. Cheung, "Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Columns Under Bi-axial Lateral
Load Reversals - (II) Test Without Axial Load," Publication 81-02, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, 1981.
Saatcioglu, M., "Modeling Hysteretic Force-Deformation Relationships for Reinforced Concrete
Elements," ACI-SP127, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1991, pp. 153-198.
Bilinear Model
Specimen SP-5
When the degradation in stiffness was recognized in the behavior of the reinforced concrete, the
loading and unloading stiffness Kr was proposed to degrade with the previous maximum
displacement (Nielsen and Imbeault, 1970) in a form:
Kr = K y (
Dm
)
Dy
in which, : unloading stiffness degradation parameters (0 < <1); Ky: initial elastic stiffness, and
Dm: previously attained maximum displacement in any direction. The unloading stiffness remains
5
constant until the response displacement amplitude exceeds the previous maximum displacement in
either direction. The model is called a "degrading" bilinear hysteresis model." If the value of a is
chosen to be zero, the unloading stiffness does not degrade with yielding. A smaller value of a tends
to yield a larger residual displacement. The degrading bilinear model does not dissipate hysteretic
energy until the yield is developed. For a reinforced concrete member, the value of is normally
selected to be around 0.4.
The hysteretic energy dissipation index Eh of
the degrading bilinear model is given by
Eh =
2(1 ){ (1 + )}
(1 + )(1 )
OUTPUT DATA
LL
HYSTERESIS RULE POINTER AT CURRENT STEP.
SS
STIFFNESS AT CURRENT STEP.
FF
FORCE AT CURRENT STEP.
VARIABLES
ES
DU
DL
FL
DMX
COMMON /STFF/MD,DC,DY,FC,FY,SC,SY,SU,B0,B1
GO TO (1,2,3,4),LL
C
INITIAL ELASTIC STAGE.
1 IF (DY-ABS(DD)) 110,110,100
100 FF=SY*DD
GO TO 1000
110 DMX=DY
IF (DD) 300,200,200
C
POST-YIELDING STAGE IN POSITIVE DIRECTION.
2 IF (DD-DS) 220,220,210
200 LL=2
SS=SU
210 FF= FY+(DD-DY)*SU
GO TO 1000
220 IF (DMX.LT.ABS(DS)) DMX=ABS(DS)
ES=SY*(DY/DMX)**B0
DU=DS
DL=(FS+FY-DY*SU-DU*ES)/(SU-ES)
FL=-FY+(DL+DY)*SU
IF (DD-DL) 300,300,400
C
POST-YIELDING STAGE IN NEGATIVE DIRECTION.
3 IF (DD-DS) 310,320,320
300 LL=3
SS=SU
310 FF=-FY+(DD+DY)*SU
GO TO 1000
320 IF (DMX.LT.ABS(DS)) DMX=ABS(DS)
ES=SY*(DY/DMX)**B0
DL=DS
FL=-FY+(DL+DY)*SU
DU=(FY-FL+DL*ES-DY*SU)/(ES-SU)
IF (DD-DU) 400,200,200
C
POST-YIELDING ELASTIC STAGE.
4 IF (DD-DU) 420,200,200
400 LL=4
SS=ES
410 FF=FL+(DD-DL)*ES
GO TO 1000
420 IF (DD-DL) 300,300,410
C
1000 RETURN
END
by
Ramberg and Osgood (1943), where D y : yield displacement, Fy : yield resistance and : a
parameter of the model. Jennings (1963) introduced the fourth parameter to the model. The
A stress-strain relation of the metal was expressed using three parameters D y , Fy and
initial loading curve of the model under monotonically increasing deformation, as modified by
Jennings, is expressed by
D
F
F
=
(1 +
D y Fy
Fy
in which,
(1963).
The initial tangent modulus is equal to (Fy/Dy), and the initial loading curve passes a point (Fy,
(1+ )Dy) for any value of . The shape of the primary curve can be controlled by the exponent
from linearly elastic ( = 1.0) to elasto-plastic ( = infinity). For a larger value of , the behavior
becomes similar to that of the bilinear model.
Upon unloading from a peak response point (Do, Fo), the unloading, load reversal and reloading
branches of the relationship is given by
D Do F Fo
F Fo
=
(1 +
2Dy
2 Fy
2 Fy
until the response point reaches the peak point of one outer hysteresis loop.
The resistance F is not explicitly expressed by a given displacement D in this model. The
resistance F at a given displacement D must be computed numerically, for example, using the
Newton-Rapson's iterative procedure.
The Ramberg-Osgood model is often used for stress-strain relation of the steel in the finite
element analysis or in the lamina model, and for resistance-deformation relation of steel members in
a frame analysis.
The hysteresis energy dissipation index of the Ramberg-Osgood model is expressed as
Eh =
(1
D F
2
)(1 y m )
Fy Dm
1+
The model can dissipate some hysteresis energy even if the ductility factor is less than unity. The
9
10
OUTPUT DATA
FF
CURRENT RESISTANCE
SS
CURRENT TANGENT STIFFNESS
COMMON /STFF/MD,DC,DY,FC,FY,SC,SY,SU,B0,B1
C
GO TO (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10), LL
RULE 1
LOADING ON PRIMARY CURVE
1 CONTINUE
IF ((DD-DS)*DS) 120,110,110
100 CONTINUE
LL=1
110 CONTINUE
XX=DD/DY
QQ=FS/FY
CALL RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,B1)
FF=QQ*FY
SS=FY/DY/XX
GO TO 10000
120 CONTINUE
D0=DS
F0=FS
130 CONTINUE
IF (ABS(DD)-ABS(D0)) 200,200,100
C
RULE 2
UNLOADING FROM POINT (D0,F0) ON PRIMARY CURVE
2 CONTINUE
IF ((DS-D0)*(DD-DS)) 230,220,220
200 CONTINUE
LL=2
210 CONTINUE
XX=(DD-D0)/(DY+DY)
QQ=(FS-F0)/(FY+FY)
CALL RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,B1)
FF=QQ*(FY+FY)+F0
SS=FY/DY/XX
GO TO 10000
220 CONTINUE
IF (ABS(DD)-ABS(D0)) 210,210,100
230 CONTINUE
D1=DS
F1=FS
240 IF (ABS(DD)-ABS(D0)) 300,300,100
C
RULE 3
UNLOADING FROM POINT (D1,F1) ON FIRST INNER LOOP
C
11
3 CONTINUE
IF ((DS-D1)*(DD-DS)) 330,320,320
300 CONTINUE
LL=3
310 CONTINUE
XX=(DD-D1)/(DY+DY)
QQ=(FS-F1)/(FY+FY)
CALL RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,B1)
FF=QQ*(FY+FY)+F1
SS=FY/DY/XX
GO TO 10000
320 CONTINUE
IF (ABS(DD)-ABS(D0)) 310,310,100
330 CONTINUE
D2=DS
F2=FS
340 CONTINUE
IF ((D1-D2)*(DD-D1)) 400,130,130
C
RULE 4
UNLOADING FROM POINT (D2,F2) ON FIRST INNER LOOP
4 CONTINUE
IF ((D1-D2)*(DD-DS)) 430,420,420
400 CONTINUE
LL=4
410 CONTINUE
XX=(DD-D2)/(DY+DY)
QQ=(FS-F2)/(FY+FY)
CALL RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,B1)
FF=QQ*(FY+FY)+F2
SS=FY/DY/XX
GO TO 10000
420 CONTINUE
IF ((D1-D2)*(DD-D1)) 410,130,130
430 CONTINUE
D3=DS
F3=FS
440 CONTINUE
IF ((D1-D2)*(DD-D2)) 240,240,500
C
RULE 5
UNLOADING FROM POINT (D3,F3) ON SECOND INNER LOOP
5 CONTINUE
IF ((D2-D3)*(DD-DS)) 530,520,520
500 CONTINUE
LL=5
510 CONTINUE
XX=(DD-D3)/(DY+DY)
QQ=(FS-F3)/(FY+FY)
CALL RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,B1)
FF=QQ*(FY+FY)+F3
SS=FY/DY/XX
GO TO 10000
520 CONTINUE
IF ((D2-D3)*(DD-D2)) 510,240,240
530 CONTINUE
D4=DS
F4=FS
540 CONTINUE
IF ((D2-D3)*(DD-D3)) 340,340,600
C
RULE 6
UNLOADING FROM POINT (D4,F4) ON SECOND INNER LOOP
6 CONTINUE
IF ((D3-D4)*(DD-DS)) 630,620,620
600 CONTINUE
LL=6
610 CONTINUE
XX=(DD-D4)/(DY+DY)
QQ=(FS-F4)/(FY+FY)
CALL RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,B1)
FF=QQ*(FY+FY)+F4
SS=FY/DY/XX
GO TO 10000
12
620 CONTINUE
IF ((D3-D4)*(DD-D3)) 610,340,340
630 CONTINUE
D5=DS
F5=FS
640 CONTINUE
IF ((D3-D4)*(DD-D4)) 440,440,700
C
RULE 7
UNLOADING FROM POINT (D5,F5) ON THIRD INNER LOOP
7 CONTINUE
IF ((D4-D5)*(DD-DS)) 730,720,720
700 CONTINUE
LL=7
710 CONTINUE
XX=(DD-D5)/(DY+DY)
QQ=(FS-F5)/(FY+FY)
CALL RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,B1)
FF=QQ*(FY+FY)+F5
SS=FY/DY/XX
GO TO 10000
720 CONTINUE
IF ((D4-D5)*(DD-D4)) 710,440,440
730 CONTINUE
D6=DS
F6=FS
740 CONTINUE
IF ((D4-D5)*(DD-D5)) 540,540,800
C
RULE 8
UNLOADING FROM POINT (D6,F6) ON THIRD INNER LOOP
8 CONTINUE
IF ((D5-D6)*(DD-DS)) 830,820,820
800 CONTINUE
LL=8
810 CONTINUE
XX=(DD-D6)/(DY+DY)
QQ=(FS-F6)/(FY+FY)
CALL RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,B1)
FF=QQ*(FY+FY)+F6
SS=FY/DY/XX
GO TO 10000
820 CONTINUE
IF ((D5-D6)*(DD-D5)) 810,540,540
830 CONTINUE
D7=DS
F7=FS
840 CONTINUE
IF ((D5-D6)*(DD-D6)) 640,640,900
C
RULE 9
UNLOADING FROM POINT (D7,F7) ON FOURTH INNER LOOP
9 CONTINUE
IF ((D6-D7)*(DD-DS)) 930,920,920
900 CONTINUE
LL=9
910 CONTINUE
XX=(DD-D7)/(DY+DY)
QQ=(FS-F7)/(FY+FY)
CALL RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,B1)
FF=QQ*(FY+FY)+F7
SS=FY/DY/XX
GO TO 10000
920 CONTINUE
IF ((D6-D7)*(DD-D6)) 910,640,640
930 CONTINUE
D8=DS
F8=FS
940 CONTINUE
IF ((D6-D7)*(DD-D7)) 740,740,1000
C
RULE 10 LINEAR RELATION BETWEEN POINTS (D7,F7) AND (D8,F8)
10 CONTINUE
IF ((D7-D8)*(DD-D8)) 840,1020,1020
1000 CONTINUE
13
LL=10
1010 CONTINUE
SS=(F7-F8)/(D7-D8)
FF=F8+(DD-D8)*SS
GO TO 10000
1020 CONTINUE
IF ((D7-D8)*(DD-D7)) 1010,740,740
C
10000 CONTINUE
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE RAMOSG (XX,QQ,B0,ERR)
C
C
DETERMINATION OF FORCE LEVEL QQ AT A GIVEN DISPLACEMENT XX OF A
C
RAMBERG-OSGOOD HYSTERESIS MODEL BY THE NEWTON-RAPSON'S ITERATIVE
C
PROCEDURE.
C
C
XX=QQ*(1.0+ABS(QQ)**(B0-1.0))
C
C
C
INPUT DATA
C
XX
CURRENT DISPLACEMENT
C
QQ
INITIAL VALUE OF RESISTANCE
C
B0
RAMBERG-OSGOOD PARAMETER
C
ERR
CONVERGENCE LIMIT
C
C
OUTPUT
C
QQ
CURRENT RESISTANCE OF THE HYSTERESIS MODEL
C
XX
CURRENT STIFFNESS
C
=1.0+B0*ABS(QQ)**(B0-1.0)
C
10 CONTINUE
Q0=QQ
EX=ABS(Q0)**(B0-1.0)
GQ=Q0*(1.0+EX)-XX
TQ=1.0+B0*EX
QQ=Q0-GQ/TQ
IF (ABS(QQ-Q0)/(ABS(Q0)+ABS(QQ)).LT.ERR) GO TO 20
GO TO 10
20 CONTINUE
XX=1.0+B0*ABS(QQ)**(B0-1.0)
RETURN
END
14
Eh =
(1
K y Fc
)
K c Fy
References:
Fukada, Y., "Study on the Restoring Force
Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
(in Japanese)," Proceedings, Kanto Branch
Symposium, Architectural Institute of Japan, No.
40, 1969, pp. 121-124.
Nomura, S., "Restoring Characteristics and their
Modeling," Data for Earthquake Resistant
Design for Buildings, No. 65, Magazine of
Architectural Institute of Japan, June 1976.
Nomura model (1976)
16
OUTPUT DATA
LL
HYSTERESIS RULE POINTER AT CURRENT STEP.
SS
STIFFNESS AT CURRENT STEP.
FF
FORCE AT CURRENT STEP.
VARIABLES
DU
DL
FL
FU
DX
DN
FX
FN
B0
17
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
RULE 4
RULE 5
RULE 6
S1=SY*B0
FF=FL+(DD-DL)*S1
POST-CRACKING ELASTIC STAGE
S0=SC*B0
FF=FL+(DD-DL)*S0
LOADING IN POST-YIELDING STAGE IN POSITIVE DIRECTION
FF= FY+(DD-DY)*SU
LOADING IN POST-YIELDING STAGE IN NEGATIVE DIRECTION
FF=-FY+(DD+DY)*SU
COMMON /STFF/MD,DC,DY,FC,FY,SC,SY,SU,B0,B1
C
GO TO (1,2,3,4,5,6), LL
RULE 1
INITIAL ELASTIC STGE BEFORE CRACKING AT (DC,FC)
1 IF (DC-ABS(DD)) 110,110,100
100 FF=SC*DD
GO TO 1000
110 DX= DY
DN=-DY
FX= FY
FN=-FY
S0=SC
S1=SY
IF (DD.GT.DY) GO TO 500
IF (DD.LT.-DY) GO TO 600
IF (DD) 300,200,200
C
RULE 2
LOADING IN POST-CRACKING STAGE IN POSITIVE DIRECTION
2 IF (DD-DS) 230,230,220
200 LL=2
SS=S1
210 FF=FX+(DD-DX)*S1
GO TO 1000
220 IF (DX-DD) 500,500,210
230 DU=DS
FU=FS
DL=(FU-FN+DN*S1-DU*S0)/(S1-S0)
FL=FU+(DL-DU)*S0
IF (DL-DD) 400,240,240
240 IF (DN-DD) 300,600,600
C
RULE 3
LOADING IN POST-CRACKING STAGE IN NEGATIVE DIRECTION
3 IF (DD-DS) 320,330,330
300 LL=3
SS=S1
310 FF=FN+(DD-DN)*S1
GO TO 1000
320 IF (DN-DD) 310,600,600
330 DL=DS
FL=FS
DU=(FX-FL-DX*S1+DL*S0)/(S0-S1)
FU=FL+(DU-DL)*S0
IF (DU-DD) 340,340,400
340 IF (DX-DD) 500,500,200
C
RULE 4
POST-CRACKING ELASTIC STAGE
4 IF (DU-DD) 340,340,420
400 LL=4
SS=S0
410 FF=FL+(DD-DL)*S0
GO TO 1000
420 IF (DL-DD) 410,240,240
C
RULE 5
LOADING IN POST-YIELDING STAGE IN POSITIVE DIRECTION
5 IF (DD-DS) 520,520,510
500 LL=5
SS=SU
510 FF= FY+(DD-DY)*SU
GO TO 1000
520 DX=DS
FX=FS
B0=DY*(FX-FN)/(FY*(DX-DN))
C
18
S0=SC*B0
S1=SY*B0
GO TO 230
C
RULE 6
LOADING IN POST-YIELDING STAGE IN NEGATIVE DIRECTION
6 IF (DD-DS) 610,620,620
600 LL=6
SS=SU
610 FF=-FY+(DD+DY)*SU
GO TO 1000
620 DN=DS
FN=FS
B0=DY*(FX-FN)/(FY*(DX-DN))
S0=SC*B0
S1=SY*B0
GO TO 330
C
1000 RETURN
END
19
Y
A
Kr=Ky
Ky
Clough Model
C
Y
A
Fy
A minor deficiency of the Clough model
was pointed out by Mahin and Bertero
(1976). After unloading from point A,
consider a situation in which reloading takes
Ky
B
place from point B. The original Clough
model assumed that the response point
Dy
should move toward the previous maximum
response point C. This is not realistic.
Therefore, a minor modification was added
so that the response point should move
Y
toward an immediately preceding unloading
point A during reloading. When the
Modified Clough Model
response point reaches the point A, the
response point moves toward the previous maximum point C.
Kr
D
Dm
The model was made more versatile by incorporating the reduction in unloading stiffness Kr with
a maximum displacement in a form:
Kr = K y (
Dm
)
Dy
200
: unloading stiffness
in which,
degradation parameter; K y : initial elastic
Dm : previous maximum
Column Resistance, kN
stiffness; and
Clough Model
100
RC Column
-100
-200
-100
-50
50
20
100
Saiidi and Sozen (1979) and Riddell and Newmark (1979) used models similar to the modified
Clough model.
Wang and Shah (1987) introduced the strength and stiffness degradation effect of cumulative
damage. The strength and stiffness degrade in proportion to (1-Dws), where Dws is the Wang and
Shah damage index. The ordinates of the bilinear skeleton curve in monotonic loading is multiplied
by the current value of (1-Dws). Unloading and reloading stiffness is reduced by the same amount, as
they are defined on the basis of the location of the point of reversal and of the maximum previous
deformation in the direction of loading, on the degraded skeleton curve. The Wang and Shah
damage index is defined separately for each direction of loading as
en 1
Dws = n
e 1
where the damage prameter
=c
Eh =
{1
(1 + )
21
22
C
C
C
RULE 5
COMMON /STFF/MD,DC,DY,FC,FY,SC,SY,SU,B0,B1
DIMENSION DX(2),FX(2),ES(2)
C
C
C
IS=1
NEGATIVE RESISTANCE AT PREVIOUS STEP
IS=2
POSITIVE RESISTANCE AT PREVIOUS STEP
IS=2
IF (FS.LT.0.0) IS=1
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
C
GO TO PREVIOUS HYSTERESIS RULE
GO TO (1,2,3,4,5), LL
C
RULE 1 = INITIAL ELASTIC STAGE
1 IF (DY-ABS(DD)) 110,110,100
100 FF=SY*DD
GO TO 1000
110 DX(1)=-DY
DX(2)= DY
FX(1)=-FY
FX(2)= FY
ES(1)=SY
ES(2)=SY
GO TO 200
C
RULE 2 = LOADING BEYOND YIELD POINT (DX,FX)
2 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 220,220,210
200 LL=2
SS=SU
210 FF=SN*FY+(DD-SN*DY)*SU
GO TO 1000
220 DX(IS)=DS
FX(IS)=FS
ES(IS)=SY*(DY/ABS(DS))**B0
XD=DX(IS)-FX(IS)/ES(IS)
IF ((XD-DD)*SN) 300,230,230
230 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
240 IF ((DX(IS)-DD)*SN) 200,200,400
C
RULE 3 = UNLOADING FROM YIELD POINT (DMX,FMX)
3 IF ((XD-DD)*SN) 320,230,230
300 LL=3
SS=ES(IS)
310 FF=FX(IS)+(DD-DX(IS))*ES(IS)
GO TO 1000
320 IF ((DX(IS)-DD)*SN) 200,200,310
C
RULE 4 = LOADING TOWARD YIELD POINT (DMX,FMX)
4 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 430,430,420
400 LL=4
SS=FX(IS)/(DX(IS)-XD)
410 FF=SS*(DD-XD)
GO TO 1000
420 IF ((DX(IS)-DD)*SN) 200,200,410
430 D1=DS
F1=FS
X1=D1-F1/ES(IS)
IF ((X1-DD)*SN) 500,440,440
440 XD=X1
GO TO 230
C
RULE 5 = UNLOADING FROM INNER PEAK (D1,F1)
5 IF ((X1-DD)*SN) 520,440,440
500 LL=5
SS=ES(IS)
510 FF=F1+(DD-D1)*ES(IS)
GO TO 1000
520 IF ((D1-DD)*SN) 240,240,510
C
1000 RETURN
END
23
kr = k y (
Dy
D
) 0.4
in which k r : slope of unloading curve, k y : slope of a line joining the yield point in one direction to
the cracking point in the other direction, D : maximum deflection attained in the direction of the
loading, and D y : deflection at yield.
6. Condition: The yield load is exceeded in one direction but the cracking load is not exceeded in
the opposite direction.
Rule: Unloading follows Rule 5. Loading in the other direction continues as an extension of the
unloading line up to the cracking load. Then, the loading curve is aimed at the yield point.
7. Condition: One or more loading cycles have occurred.
Rule: If the immediately preceding quarter-cycle remained on one side of the zero-load axis,
unload at the rate based on rule 2, 3 and 5 whichever governed in the previous loading history. If the
immediately preceding quarter-cycle crossed the zero-load axis, unload at 70% of the rate based on
rule 2, 3, or 5, whichever governed in the previous loading history, but not at a slope flatter than the
immediately preceding loading slope.
Takeda model included (a) stiffness changes at flexural cracking and yielding, (b) hysteresis rules
for inner hysteresis loops inside the outer loop, and (c) unloading stiffness degradation with
deformation. The response point moves toward a peak of the one outer hysteresis loop. The
unloading stiffness Kr after yielding is given by
24
Fc + Fy Dm
Kr =
Dc + D y D y
Dc
D y (1 + )
1
}
E h = {1
Fc
1+
Fy
1+
Bilinear Takeda Model: The primary curve of the Takeda model can be made bilinear simply
choosing the cracking point to be the origin of the hysteretic plane. Such a model is called the
"bilinear Takeda" model, similar to the Clough model except that the bilinear Takeda model has
more hysteresis rules for inner hysteresis loops (Otani and Sozen, 1972); i.e., the response point
moves toward an unloading point on the immediately outer hysteresis loop.
The behavior before yielding is
sometimes made simple by letting the
response point moves toward the
origin during unloading, and toward
the maximum response point in the
opposite side upon reloading. The
Takeda hysteresis rules are applied
after the yielding.
F
(D2,F2)
Dm
X0
(D0,F0)
X1
X3
D
Dm
(D3,F3)
(D1,F1)
Additional modifications of the Takeda model with bilinear backbone curve may be found in
literature (Powell, 1975, Riddle and Newmark, 1979, Saiidi and Sozen, 1979, Saiidi, 1982). Riddle
and Newmark (1979) used a bilinear skeleton curve and unloading stiffness equal to the initial elastic
stiffness; loading occurs either on the strain hardening branch or towards the furthest point attained
in the previous cycle. Saiidi and Sozen (1979) claimed to simplify the Takeda model using a bilinear
skeleton curve; the model, however, is identical to the modified Clough model with reduced
unloading stiffness with maximum deformation, and reloading to the immediate prior unloading point
if reloading occurs during unloading and then to the unloading point on the skeleton curve.
References:
Takeda, T., M. A. Sozen and N. N. Nielsen, "Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated
Earthquakes," Journal, Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. ST12, 1970, pp. 2557-2573.
Otani, S., and M. A. Sozen, "Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frames During
Earthquakes," Structural Research Series No. 392, Civil Engineering Studies, University of
Illinois, Urbana, 1972.
Powell, G. H., Supplement to Computer Program DRAIN-2D, Supplement to Report, DRAIN-2D
Users Guide, University of California, Berkeley, August 1975.
Riddle, R., and N. M. Newmark, Statistical Analysis of the Response of Nonlinear Systems
subjected to Earthquakes, Structural Research Series No. 468, Civil Engineering Studies,
University of Illinois, Urbana, 1979.
Saiidi, M., Hysteresis Models for Reinforced Concrete, Journal, Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 108,
No. ST5, May 1982, pp. 1077 - 1087.
Saiidi, M., and M. A. Sozen, Simple and Complex Models for Nonlinear Seismic Response of
Reinforced Concrete Structures, Structural Research Series No. 465, Civil Engineering Studies,
University of Illinois, Urbana, 1979.
26
OUTPUT DATA
LL
HYSTERESIS RULE POINTER AT PRESENT STEP.
SS
STIFFNESS AT PRESENT STEP.
FF
FORCE AT PRESENT TIME STEP
DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES
S1(IS)
UNLOADING STIFFNESS IN OUTER HYSTERESIS LOOP
S1(IS)=(DY/DM(IS))**B0*(FY/DY)
S2(IS)
UNLOADING STIFFNESS IN INNER HYSTERESIS LOOPS
S2(IS)=S1(IS)*B1
F0
UNLOADING FORCE LEVEL FROM STEP 6
F1
UNLOADING FORCE LEVEL FROM STEP 8
F2
UNLOADING FORCE LEVEL FROM STEP 10
F3
UNLOADING FORCE LEVEL FROM STEP 12
D0
UNLOADING DISPLACEMENT FROM STEP 6
D1
UNLOADING DISPLACEMENT FROM STEP 8
D2
UNLOADING DISPLACEMENT FROM STEP 10
D3
UNLOADING DISPLACEMENT FROM STEP 12
X0
INTERCEPT OF DISPLACEMENT AXIS WITH STEP 6
X1
INTERCEPT OF DISPLACEMENT AXIS WITH STEP 8
X2
INTERCEPT OF DISPLACEMENT AXIS WITH STEP 10
X3
INTERCEPT OF DISPLACEMENT AXIS WITH STEP 12
FM(*)
UNLOADING FORCE LEVEL ON PRIMARY CURVE
DM(*)
UNLOADING DISPLACEMENT ON PRIMARY CURVE
COMMON /STFF/MD,DC,DY,FC,FY,SC,SY,SU,B0,B1
DIMENSION FM(2),DM(2),S1(2),S2(2)
C
C
IS=2
IF (FS.LT.0.0) IS=1
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
C
C
GO TO (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11), LL
RULE 1
LINEARLY ELASTIC STAGE BEFORE YIELDING AT (DY,F!)
27
1 IF (DY-ABS(DD)) 110,110,100
100 FF=SY*DD
GO TO 10000
110 FM(1)=-FY
FM(2)= FY
DM(1)=-DY
DM(2)= DY
S1(1)= SY
S1(2)= SY
GO TO 200
C
RULE 2
LOADING ON PRIMARY CURVE AFTER YIELDING AT (DY,FY),
C
OR BEYOND PREVIOUS MAXIMUM POINT (DM,FM).
2 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 220,220,210
200 LL=2
SS=SU
210 FF=(FY+(ABS(DD)-DY)*SU)*SN
GO TO 10000
220 FM(IS)=FS
DM(IS)=DS
S1(IS)=SY*(DY/ABS(DM(IS)))**B0
X0=DM(IS)-FM(IS)/S1(IS)
IF ((X0-DD)*SN) 300,230,230
230 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
240 IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 200,200,400
C
RULE 3
UNLOADING WITH STIFFNESS S1 FROM PREVIOUS MAXIMUM
C
POINT (DM,FM) AFTER YIELDING AT (DY,FY).
3 IF ((X0-DD)*SN) 320,230,230
300 LL=3
SS=S1(IS)
310 FF=FM(IS)+(DD-DM(IS))*S1(IS)
GO TO 10000
320 IF
((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 200,200,310
C
RULE 4
LOADING TOWARD PREVIOUS MAXIMUM POINT (DM,FM) ON
C
PRIMARY CURVE FROM ZERO CROSSING POINT (X0,0.0).
4 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 430,430,420
400 LL=4
SS=FM(IS)/(DM(IS)-X0)
410 FF=(DD-X0)*SS
GO TO 10000
420 IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 200,200,410
430 F0=FS
D0=DS
S2(IS)=S1(IS)*B1
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
X1=D0-F0/SS
IF ((X1-DD)*SN) 500,440,440
440 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
450 IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 200,200,600
C
RULE 5
UNLOADING FROM INNER PEAK POINT (D0,F0) WITH
C
STIFFNESS S2.
5 IF ((X1-DD)*SN) 520,440,440
500 LL=5
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
510 FF=F0+(DD-D0)*SS
GO TO 10000
520 IF ((D0-DD)*SN) 240,240,510
C
RULE 6
LOADING TOWARD PREVIOUS MAXIMUM POINT (DM,FM) ON
C
PRIMARY CURVE FROM ZERO CROSSING POINT (X1,0.0).
6 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 630,630,620
600 LL=6
SS=FM(IS)/(DM(IS)-X1)
610 FF=(DD-X1)*SS
GO TO 10000
620 IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 200,200,610
630 F1=FS
D1=DS
28
S2(IS)=S1(IS)*B1
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
X2=D1-F1/SS
IF ((X2-DD)*SN) 700,640,640
640 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
650 IF ((D0-DD)*SN) 240,240,800
C
RULE 7
UNLOADING FROM INNER PEAK POINT (D1,F1) WITH
C
STIFFNESS S2.
7 IF ((X2-DD)*SN) 720,640,640
700 LL=7
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
710 FF=F1+(DD-D1)*SS
GO TO 10000
720 IF ((D1-DD)*SN) 450,450,710
C
RULE 8
LOADING TOWARD INNER PEAK POINT (D0,F0) FROM ZERO
C
CROSSING POINT (X2,0.0).
8 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 830,830,820
800 LL=8
SS=F0/(D0-X2)
810 FF=(DD-X2)*SS
GO TO 10000
820 IF ((D0-DD)*SN) 240,240,810
830 F2=FS
D2=DS
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
X3=D2-F2/SS
IF ((X3-DD)*SN) 900,840,840
840 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
850 IF ((D1-DD)*SN) 450,450,1000
C
RULE 9
UNLOADING FROM INNER PEAK POINT (D2,F2) WITH
C
STIFFNESS S2.
9 IF ((X3-DD)*SN) 920,840,840
900 LL=9
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
910 FF=F2+(DD-D2)*SS
GO TO 10000
920 IF ((D2-DD)*SN) 650,650,910
C
RULE 10
LOADING TOWARD INNER PEAK POINT (D1,F1) FROM ZERO
C
CROSSING POINT (X3,0.0).
10 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 1030,1030,1020
1000 LL=10
SS=F1/(D1-X3)
1010 FF=(DD-X3)*SS
GO TO 10000
1020 IF ((D1-DD)*SN) 450,450,1010
1030 F3=FS
D3=DS
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
X2=D3-F3/SS
IF ((X2-DD)*SN) 1100,640,640
C
RULE 11
UNLOADING FROM INNER PEAK POINT (D3,F3) WITH
C
STIFFNESS S2.
11 IF ((X2-DD)*SN) 1120,640,640
1100 LL=11
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
1110 FF=F3+(DD-D3)*SS
GO TO 10000
1120 IF ((D3-DD)*SN) 850,850,1110
10000 RETURN
END
29
C
IS=2
IF (FS.LT.0.0) IS=1
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
GO TO (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13), LL
C
RULE 1
ELASTIC STAGE UP TO CRACKING
1 IF (DC-ABS(DD)) 110,110,100
100 FF=SC*DD
GO TO 10000
110 FM(1)=-FC
FM(2)= FC
DM(1)=-DC
DM(2)= DC
S1(1)= SC
S1(2)= SC
120 IF (DY-ABS(DD)) 300,300,200
C
RULE 2
LOADING ON THE POST-CRACKING FRIMARY CURVE UP TO
30
YIELDING.
2 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 230,230,220
200 LL=2
SS=SY
210 FF=(FC+(ABS(DD)-DC)*SY)*SN
GO TO 10000
220 IF (DY-ABS(DD)) 300,300,210
230 S1(IS)=(ABS(FS)+FC)/(ABS(DS)+DC)
GO TO 330
C
RULE 3
LOADING ON THE POST-YIELDING PRIMARY CURVE
3 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 320,320,310
300 LL=3
SS=SU
310 FF=(FY+(ABS(DD)-DY)*SU)*SN
GO TO 10000
320 S1(IS)=(DY/ABS(DS))**B0*(FC+FY)/(DC+DY)
330 FM(IS)=FS
DM(IS)=DS
X0=DS-FS/S1(IS)
IF ((DD-X0)*SN) 430,430,400
C
RULE 4
UNLOADING FROM A PEAK (DM,FM) ON THE PRIMARY CURVE.
4 IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 120,120,420
400 LL=4
SS=S1(IS)
410 FF=FM(IS)+(DD-DM(IS))*S1(IS)
GO TO 10000
420 IF ((DD-X0)*SN) 430,430,410
430 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
IF (ABS(DM(IS)).GE.DY) GO TO 740
X=FM(IS)/(DM(IS)-X0)
Y=FY*SN/(DY*SN-X0)
IF (X-Y) 440,440,450
440 FM(IS)=FY*SN
DM(IS)=DY*SN
450 IF (FC-ABS(FM(IS))) 740,460,460
460 X=FM(IS)/(DM(IS)-X0)
IF (X-SS) 470,470,740
470 D0=X0+FC/SS*SN
F0=FC*SN
IF ((D0-DD)*SN) 530,530,500
C
RULE 5
LOAD REVERSED AT A ZERO-CROSSING POINT (X0,0) WITHOUT
C
PREVIOUS CRACKING IN NEW LOADING DIRECTION.
5 IF ((DD-X0)*SN) 540,540,520
500 LL=5
510 FF=(DD-X0)*SS
GO TO 10000
520 IF ((D0-DD)*SN) 530,530,510
530 FM(IS)=FY*SN
DM(IS)=DY*SN
X0=SN*(DY-FY*(DY*SN-D0)/(FY*SN-F0))
GO TO 740
540 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 120,120,400
C
RULE 6
LOAD REVERSED AT ZERO-CROSSING POINT (X0,0), AND
C
LOADING TOWARD A PEAK (DM,FM) ON THE PRIMARY CURVE.
6 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 630,630,620
600 LL=6
SS=FM(IS)/(DM(IS)-X0)
610 FF=(DD-X0)*SS
GO TO 10000
620 IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 120,120,610
630 F0=FS
D0=DS
S2(IS)=S1(IS)*B1
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
X1=D0-F0/SS
31
640 IF
((DD-X1)*SN) 730,730,700
RULE 7
UNLOADING FROM A PEAK (D0,F0) TOWARD A ZERO-CROSSING
POINT (X1,0).
7 IF ((D0-DD)*SN) 740,740,720
700 LL=7
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
710 FF=F0+(DD-D0)*SS
GO TO 10000
720 IF ((DD-X1)*SN) 730,730,710
730 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
GO TO 940
740 IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 120,120,600
C
RULE 8
LOAD REVERSED AT ZERO CROSSING POINT (X1,0), AND
C
LOADING TOWARD A PEAK (DM,FM) ON THE PRIMARY CURVE.
8 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 830,830,820
800 LL=8
SS=FM(IS)/(DM(IS)-X1)
810 FF=(DD-X1)*SS
GO TO 10000
820 IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 120,120,810
830 F1=FS
D1=DS
S2(IS)=S1(IS)*B1
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
X2=D1-F1/SS
IF ((DD-X2)*SN) 930,930,900
C
RULE 9
UNLOADING FROM A PEAK (D1,F1) TOWARD A ZERO-CROSSING
C
POINT (X2,0).
9 IF ((D1-DD)*SN) 940,940,920
900 LL=9
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
910 FF=F1+(DD-D1)*SS
GO TO 10000
920 IF ((DD-X2)*SN) 930,930,910
930 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(IS+IS-3)
GO TO 1140
940 IF ((DM(IS)-DD)*SN) 120,120,800
C
RULE 10
LOAD REVERSED AT A ZERO-CROSSING POINT (X2,0), AND
C
LOADING TOWARD A PEAK (D0,F0).
10 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 1030,1030,1020
1000 LL=10
SS=F0/(D0-X2)
1010 FF=(DD-X2)*SS
GO TO 10000
1020 IF ((D0-DD)*SN) 740,740,1010
1030 F2=FS
D2=DS
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
X3=D2-F2/SS
IF ((DD-X3)*SN) 1130,1130,1100
C
RULE 11
UNLOADING FROM A PEAK (D2,F2) TOWARD A ZERO-CROSSING
C
POINT (X3,0).
11 IF ((D2-DD)*SN) 1140,1140,1120
1100 LL=11
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
1110 FF=F2+(DD-D2)*SS
GO TO 10000
1120 IF ((DD-X3)*SN) 1130,1130,1110
1130 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT (IS+IS-3)
GO TO 1330
1140 IF ((D0-DD)*SN) 740,740,1000
C
RULE 12
LOAD REVERSED AT A ZERO-CROSSING POINT (X3,0), AND
C
LOADING TOWARD A PEAK (D1,F1).
12 IF ((DD-DS)*SN) 1230,1230,1220
1200 LL=12
C
C
32
SS=F1/(D1-X3)
1210 FF=(DD-X3)*SS
GO TO 10000
1220 IF ((D1-DD)*SN) 940,940,1210
1230 F3=FS
D3=DS
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
X2=D3-F3/SS
IF ((DD-X2)*SN) 930,930,1300
C
RULE 13
UNLOADING FROM A PEAK (D3,F3) TOWARD A ZERO-CROSSING
C
POINT (X2,0).
13 IF ((D3-DD)*SN) 1330,1330,1320
1300 LL=13
IF (SS.LT.S2(IS)) SS=S2(IS)
1310 FF=F3+(DD-D3)*SS
GO TO 10000
1320 IF ((DD-X2)*SN) 930,930,1310
1330 IF ((D1-DD)*SN) 940,940,1200
10000 RETURN
END
33
where
P3
Ft1
Y1
Fy1
df2
S1(D1max,F1max)
PP4
Q4
dd2 dt2
Q1
dy2
D
dy
dt1 dd1
df1
PP2
Q3
S2(D2max,F2max)
Fy2
Y2
P2
Q2
Ft2
1 Fy1
P1
P4
Q1
P4*
PP4
(d iMAX d ti )
F
= i iMAX
Fti
y2
Q2
P4
2 Fy 2
where
*
i
P2 (1 Fy1 )
i* = i
y2
Y2(Dy2,Fy2)
PP4*
Q4
(d iMAX > d ti )
flexural
S1
D
d1max
Q3
1 Fy1
P1*
P1
(1 + )1 Fy1
Q2
excursion in Quadrant Q1 is guided toward point P1 until point P1* is reached at force ( 1 + ) times
larger than the force at point P1. A line extending from point P1* through origin defines the new
softened elastic loading line K*. Point P4* is on the new elastic loading line at the same force level
as point P4. Point PP4* is also on the new elastic loading line but at a force defined by the
intersection of the modified strength envelope (line between points PP4 and S1) and K*.
Hysteresis Rules:
(1) Loading and unloading in Quadrants Qn is directed away from or toward point Pn, respectively.
(2) Loading in Quadrant Qn is directed toward point PPn, then to maximum response point Si, followed
by the strength envelope.
(3) Unloading in Quadrant Qn is directed away from point Pn.
F
P4
P3
Q1
Y1
S1
PP4
Q4
Q3
PP2
Q2
Y2
S2
P2
P1
Reference:
Dowell, R. K., F. Seible and E. L. Wilson, Pivot
Hysteresis Model for Reinforced Concrete
Members, ACI Structural Journal, Title No.
95-S55, Vol. 95, No. 5, September-October
1998, pp. 607 - 617.
Kunnath, S. K., A. M. Reinhorn, and Y. J. Park,
Analytical Modeling of Inelastic Seismic
Response of RC Structures, Journal,
Structural Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
116, No. 4, April 1990, pp. 996 - 1017,
35
Fm
Dm
Ks =
Dm Do Dy
(Dm,Fm)
Do
Ks
D 'o
Ks
Kd
D
(Dm,Fm)
Y
Takeda-slip model
When the response point crosses a line connecting the origin and the maximum response point in
the direction of reloading, the response point moved toward the previous maximum response point
and then on the skeleton curve. The unloading stiffness is defined in the same manner as the
36
Takeda model.
The same pinching and unloading stiffness is used during reloading and unloading in an inner
loop.
F 'c + Fy Dm
Kd =
D 'c + Dy Dy
where, F 'c and D 'c : resistance and deformation at cracking on the opposite side, Fy and Dy :
resistance and deformation at yielding on the unloading side, Dm : maximum deformation on the
unloading side, : unloading degradation index.
Kabeyasawa-Shiohara Model: Kabeyasawa et al. (1983) modified the Takeda-Eto slip model to
represent the behavior of a girder with the amount of longitudinal reinforcement significantly different
at the top and bottom;
37
(1) the pinching occurs only in one direction where the yield resistance is higher than the other
direction,
(2) the pinching occurs only after the initial yielding in the direction of reloading, and
(3) the stiffness Ks during slipping is a function of the maximum response point (Dm, Fm) and the
point of load reversal (Do, Fo=0.0) in the resistance-deformation plane.
The reloading (slip) stiffness Ks, after unloading in the direction of the smaller yield resistance,
was determined as
Fm
Dm
Ks =
Dm Do Dm Do
displacement at the end of unloading on the zero-load axis, : slip stiffness degradation index. No
slip behavior will be generated for = 0; the degree of slip behavior increases with > 1.0. =
1.2 was suggested.
The slip stiffness is used until the response point crosses a line with slope Kp through the
previous maximum response point (Dm, Fm); the stiffness is reduced from the slope connecting the
origin and the maximum response point by reloading stiffness index ,
K p = (
Fm
)
Dm
The values of unloading stiffness degradation index of Takeda model, slipping stiffness
degradation index , and reloading stiffness index were chosen to be 0.4, 1.0 and 1.0,
respectively by Kabeyasawa et al. (1983).
Costa and Costa model: Costa and Costa (1987) proposed a
trilinear model for the force-displacement response of a
single-degree-of-freedom oscillator, including pinching and
strength degradation.
Unloading-reloading loops prior to yielding in either direction
are bilinear, with slopes equal to those of the pre-cracking and
post-cracking branches in the virgin loading. After the initial
yielding, the reloading stiffness K s is reduced from the stiffness
Fy
Fc
Dy
Dc
Dc
where,
Fc
Dy
Fm
(
)
Dm Do Dm
Fm and
Dy
Fy
Y
C
Ks
O
and at a moment (1 ) Fm , where Fm is the resistance at the extreme point if the previous
excursion. After reaching this terminal point of the reloading branch, further loading takes place
parallel to the post-yielding stiffness of the virgin loading curve.
Fy
Fc
Dy
Dy
Dc
Dc
Fc
Fy
References:
Costa, A. C., and A. G. Costa, Hysteretic Model of Force-Displacement Relationships for Seismic
Analysis of Structures, National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Lisbon, 1987.
Eto, H, and T. Takeda, "Elasto Plastic Earthquake Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Frame Structure (in Japanese)," Report, Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, 1973,
pp. 1261-1262.
Kabeyasawa, T., H. Shiohara, S. Otani and H. Aoyama, "Analysis of the Full-scale Seven-story
Reinforced Concrete Test Structure," Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, the University of
Tokyo, (B), Vol. XXXVII, No. 2, 1983, pp. 431-478.
39
40
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
DIMENSION RY(2),FY(2),S1(2),FM(2),RM(2)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
DR
RR
SS
FF
RZ
FZ
INCREMENTAL DISPLACEMENT
DISPLACEMENT AT PREVIIOUS STEP, REPLACED BY
DISPLACEMENT AT PRESENT STEP
STIFFNESS AT PREVIOUS STEP
FORCE AT PREVIOUS STEP, REPLACED BY FORCE AT PRESENT
STEP
DISPLACEMENT AT PREVIOUS STEP (TEMPORARY USE)
FORCE AT PREVIOUS STEP (TEMPORARY USE)
RZ=RR
FZ=FF
RR=RR+DR
FF=FF+SS*DR
IS: SIGN POINTER FOR FORCE FZ AT PREVIOUS STEP
(=1 FOR POISTIVE FORCE, AND =2 FOR NEGATIVE FORCE)
SN: SIGN OF FORCE FZ AT PREVIOUS STEP (=-1.0 OR 1.0)
IS=1
IF (FZ.LT.0.0) IS=2
SN=FLOAT(3-IS-IS)
IL: HYSTERESIS RULE POINTER AT PREVIOUS TIME STEP
GO TO (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), IL
RULE 1: ELASTIC STAGE UP TO CRACKING
TEST IF DISPLACEMENT RR EXCEEDS CRACKING DISPLACEMENT RC.
41
42
S1(IS)=(SN*FC+FY(IS))/(SN*RC+RY(IS))*(RY(IS)/RM(IS))**B0
X0: DISPLACEMENT AT ZERO CROSSING POINT DURING UNLOADING
FROM PEAK (RM(*),FM(*)) ON PRIMARY CURVE.
320 X0=RM(IS)-FM(IS)/S1(IS)
C
TEST IF THE LOADING DIRECTION CHANGES AFTER UNLOADING.
C
(RR-X0)*SN>0 UNLOADING CONTINUES.
C
(RR-X0)*SN<0 UNLOADING FINISHES, AND RELOADING TAKES PLACE IN
C
THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
IF ((RR-X0)*SN) 420, 400, 400
C
C
RULE 4: UNLOADING FROM PEAK (FM,RM) ON THE PRIMARY CURVE
C
C
TEST IF PREVIOUS RESPPONSE DISPLACEMENT IS EXCEEDED DURING
C
REOADING AFTER UNLOADING FROM PEAK (RM(*),FM(*)).
C
4 IF ((RM(IS)-RR)*SN) 120, 120, 410
C
UNLOADING FROM POINT (RM,FM) ON PRIMARY CURVE.
C
FORCE AND STIFFNESS ARE REVISED WITH STIFFNESS CHANGE.
400 IL=4
FF=FM(IS)+(RR-RM(IS))*S1(IS)
SS=S1(IS)
GO TO 2000
C
TEST IF UNLOADING IS COMPLETED, AND RELOADING TAKES PLACE IN
C
THE OTHER DIRECTION
C
(RR-X0)*SN>0 UNLOADING CONTINUES.
C
(RR-X0)*SN<0 UNLOADING IS COMPLETED AND RELOADING TAKES PLACE IN
C
THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
410 IF ((RR-X0)*SN) 420, 420, 2000
C
UNLOADING IS COMPLETED AND RELOADING TAKES PLACE IN THE OPPOSITE
C
DIRECTION PASSING ZERO CROSSING POINT (X0,0).
C
SIGN SN OF FORCE FF IS CHANGED FROM FORCE FZ OF PREVIOUS STEP.
420 IS=3-IS
SN=FLOAT(3-IS-IS)
C
IF CRACKING HAS NOT OCCURRED IN THE RELOADING DIRECTION, RELAODING
C
ASSUMES THE SAME STIFFNESS AS THE UNLOADING STIFFNESS UNTIL FORCE
C
EXCEEDS THE CRACKING FORCE AT POINT (R0,F0).
IF (ABS(RM(IS)).LE.RC) THEN R0=X0+SN*FC/S1(3-IS)
F0=FC*SN
IF ((R0-RR)*SN) 520, 520, 500
C
IF YIELDING HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE IN THE RELOADING DIRECTION, AND IF
C
STIFFNESS TOWARD PREVIOUS MAXIMUM RESPONSE POINT (RM(*),FM(*))
C
IS SMALLER THAN STIFFNESS TOWARD YIELDING POINT, PREVIOUS MAXIMUM
C
RESPONSE POINT (RM(*),FM(*)) IS REPLACED BY THE YIELD POINT.
ELSE IF (ABS(RM(IS)).LE.ABS(RY(IS))) THEN
X=FM(IS)/(RM(IS)-X0)
Y=FY(IS)/(RY(IS)-X0)
IF (X.LT.Y) THEN RM(IS)=RY(IS)
FM(IS)=FY(IS)
END IF
GO TO 530
C
TEST IF YIELD FORCE IN RELOADING DIRECTION IS LARGER THAN YIELD
C
FORCE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION
ELSE IF (ABS(FY(IS)).GT.ABS(FY(3-IS))) THEN GO TO 430
ELSE GO TO 530
END IF
C
AFTER COMPLETION OF UNLOADING FROM MAXIMUM RESPONSE POINT
C
(RM(*),FM(*)) AT ZERO CROSSING POINT (X,0), SLIP TAKES
C
PLACE DURING RELOADING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION AT SLIP STIFFNESS ET.
430 X=RM(3-IS)-FM(3-IS)/S1(3-IS)
ET=FM(IS)/(RM(IS)-SN*X)*(RM(IS)/(RM(IS)-SN*X))**B1
EU=FM(IS)/RM(IS)*B2
C
DISPLACEMENT X AT START OF STRAIN HARDENING AFTER SLIP IS
C
SOLVED AS THE INTERSECTION OF LINE PASSING ZERO CROSSING POINT
C
(X0,0) WITH SLOPE ET AND LINE PASSING PREVIOUS MAXIMUM POINT
C
(RM(*),FM(*)) WITH SLOP EU.
IF (ABS(EU-ET).LT.ERR) THEN XM=X0
ELSE XM=(EU*RM(IS)-ET*X0-FM(IS))/(EU-ET)
END IF
C
C
43
C
C
C
C
44
X1=R1-F1/S1(IS)
GO TO 8
C
C
C
C
C
C
45
C
C
46
My
Y
Decay Guideline
Mc
Dm
Mc
Pinching
Dm
My
Takayanagi-Schnobrich Model of
Pinching and Strength Decay
Roufaiel-Meyer Model: Roufaiel and Meyer (1987) used a hysteresis model that includes strength
decay, stiffness degradation and pinching effect.
47
The
moment
resistance
of
a
bilinear
moment-curvature relation was assumed to decay
when a given strain is reached at the extreme
compression fiber. The curvature at the
commencement of strength decay is called the
critical curvature. The degradation in resistance was
assumed to be proportional to the amount by which
the critical curvature was exceeded.
An auxiliary unloading branch AB is drawn
parallel to the elastic branch of the bilinear skeleton
curve until it intersects a line OB through the origin O
parallel to the strain-hardening branch YA of the
skeleton curve. The line connecting this latter point B
of intersection to the point of previous extreme
deformation in the opposite direction defines the end
C of the unloading branch on the horizontal axis. If
yielding has not taken place in the direction of
loading, the yield point is used as the previous
maximum response point.
B
O Ks
Do
(Dm,Fm)
From that point on reloading is not always directed straight to the point of the previous extreme
post-yield excursion in the direction of reloading, but it may include pinching, depending on the shear
ration, M/Vh. Pinching is accomplished by directing the reloading branch first towards a point on the
elastic branch of the skeleton curve at an ordinate equal to that of the intersection of this branch with
the line of straight reloading to the previous extreme deformation point, times m<1. The second part
of the reloading branch heads towards this latter extreme deformation point. Parameter m assumes
the following values;
for
M/Vh<1.5
m=0
m=0.4(M/Vh)-0.6
for 1.5<M/Vh<4
m=1
for 4<M/Vh
The slope of slipping stiffness is
F 'm
Ks = m
D 'm Do
Chung et al. (1987) extended the
Roufaiel and Meyer model to include
strength and stiffness degradation at
constant
amplitude
cycling.
The
degradation
model
requires
two
additional parameters: the value of
curvature f and the moment m f at
failure in monotonic loading. The failure
is defined as rupture or buckling of
longitudinal reinforcement, concrete
crushing, or the reduction of resistance
to 75 %. If the bilinear approximation to
the moment-curvature curve under
monotonic loading is denoted by m p ( ) ,
is given by
48
y
m(half cycle at ) = {m p ( f ) m f }
y
f
Accordingly, a branch of reloading in the direction where the previous maximum curvature is equal to
, moves toward a point at ( m p ( ) m, ), rather than at ( m p ( ), ) as in the original Roufaiel
and Meyer model.
Banon-Biggs-Irvine Model: Banon, Biggs and Max
Irvine (1981) modified Takeda hysteresis model by (a)
using a bilinear skeleton curve, (b) incorporating
pinching and stiffness degradation. The pinching
hysteresis was adopted to simulate the propagation of
inclined cracks due to high shear and slippage of
longitudinal reinforcement.
K2
K1
D
Dm
Hysteresis rules are summarized below;
K s Dm
(a) Moment-rotation relationship is elastic up to the
yield point,
(b) Once the yield point is exceeded, loading
proceeds on the second slope of the bilinear envelope,
(c) Unloading is parallel to the elastic stiffness,
Y
(d) The stiffness during reloading immediately after
Banon-Biggs-Irvine Model (1981)
unloading is reduced to 50 % of the second slope of the
bilinear envelope,
K
Ks = 2
2
(e) When the direction of loading changes during unloading and resistance (or deformation)
starts to increase again, the reloading stiffness is parallel to the elastic stiffness before the response
point reaches a point where the last unloading started,
(f) When the sign of deformation changes during reloading, the response point moves toward
previous maximum response point in the direction of reloading.
If the strength-degrading feature is introduced, the response point after the pinching does not
move toward the previous maximum point, but a point on the skeleton curve at deformation greater
than the previous maximum deformation.
D *m =
and
Dm
D
Skeleton Curves of Kato Model (1983)
The response is linearly elastic before the response point reaches point A. The response point
follows the skeleton curve if the slope of the skeleton curve is positive; if the slope of the skeleton
curve is negative, the response point increases its deformation without the change in resistance
(plastic behavior).
If a response point crosses the descending branches during loading or reloading, the deformation
increases without change in resistance (perfectly plastic stiffness). Upon unloading from a maximum
response point on the perfectly plastic branch, the response point moves on a line parallel to the
initial elastic stiffness K e until the response point crosses the descending skeleton curve; the point
is termed as the maximum response point (Dmax, Fmax). Then the response point follows a line with
reduced stiffness K u ;
Ku = K e (
Dmax
)
Dy
D
Fmin
( max )
Dmin Do Dy
where ( Dmin , Fmin ): previous maximum response point on the skeleton curve in the direction of
reloading, Do : deformation at the completion of unloading, D y : yield deformation in the opposite
direction.
Ke
Dmin
D yp K s
ls
D xo
Ku
Dmax
Fmin
This slip stiffness is used for deformation ls (= l), where l: length from the unloading point to
the intersection of slip line and the line connecting the origin and the negative maximum response
point ( Dmin , Fmin ). The response point during strain softening moves toward the previous maximum
point ( Dmin , Fmin ) or the yield point if no yielding was experienced in the reloading direction.
If unloading takes place during reloading toward previous maximum response point, the
unloading stiffness from the previous maximum response point is used. If the response point crosses
50
C
D
51
Y
Kn = nk y
Fy 0
k0
Fy = a N Fy 0
k = b N k0
Fn = Fy
n
References:
Banon, H., J. M. Biggs and H. Max Irvine, "Seismic Damage in Reinforced Concrete Frames,"
Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. ST9, September 1981, pp. 1713-1729.
Chung, Y. S., et al., Seismic Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Members, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, Technical
Report NCEER-87-0022, 1987.
Kato, D., S. Otani, H. Katsumata and H. Aoyama, "Effect of Wall Base Rotation Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Frame-Wall Building," Proceedings, Third South Pacific Regional
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, May
1983.
Matsushima, Y., "Discussion of Restoring Force Characteristics of Buildings, the Damage from
Tokachi-oki Earthquake (in Japanese)," Report, Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan,
August 1969, pp. 587-588.
Park, Y. J., et al., IDARC: Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame-Shear Wall
Structures, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New
52
53
m = m( , n)
n = n( , )
m
m
m m n
m n
) +
+
n = (
+
n
n
n
n
n
n =
+
The above relation for incremental curvature and strain , and then modification factor was
m =
m
1
(
) = EI *
1 m n
n m
n
1
n = {
} = EA *
m m
n
m
1 ( /
)(
)
n n
m =
where EI * : instantaneous flexural rigidity, and EA * : instantaneous axial rigidity. The ratio
n
m
55
Tension
Compression
K1 = S1 ( K se + K ce )
= S1 ( K SE
for
D
+ K ce ) m
Dy
for
In a tensile zone:
K 2 = S 2 K se
D'
= S 2 K se m
Dsy
Dm Dsy
for
Dm > Dsy
D ' m Dsy
for
where Kse and Kce: initial elastic stiffness of the steel spring and the concrete spring, Dsy: yield
deformation of the concrete and steel springs, Dm: previous maximum response deformation in
compression, Dm': previous maximum deformation in tension, S1 = S2 =2.0 and k = 0.4.
Post yielding stiffness was chosen to be 0.02 times the initial elastic stiffness of the direction of
loading. Upon reloading in compression, the response point moves on the slip stiffness line toward a
point (Dm, Fm"), where F " m = Fm and = 0.4. When the sign of deformation changes, the
response point moves toward the previous maximum point in compression. Similar to the Takeda
model, the response point moves toward a peak of immediately outer loop.
Axial Force-deformation Model: Kabeyasawa and Shiohara et al. (1983) used a hysteresis model
for an axial force-deformation relation of a boundary column in the analysis of a structural wall. The
model was developed on the basis of the observed axial deformation behavior of the boundary
column in the test of the full-scale seven-story structure tested as a part of U.S.-Japan Cooperative
Program (Yoshimura and Kurose, 1985).
The tension stiffening was ignored; concrete was assumed to resist no tensile stress. The axial
stiffness in tension was made equal to the stiffness of the reinforcing steel in the boundary column,
and the stiffness in compression was assumed to be linearly elastic including the stiffness of the
concrete. The stiffness in tension changed at the tensile yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement.
The gravity loads was considered as the initial stress.
56
Tension
Elongation
Initial Load
Kr = Kc (
Dmax
)
D yt
Compression
Axial force-deformation model for
wall boundary element (Kabeyasawa et al., 1983)
When the response point reached the previous maximum point ( Dmax , Fmax ) in tension, the
response point moved on the second slope of the skeleton curve, renewing the maximum response
point.
When the response point approached the compressive characteristic point Y' (Dyc, -Fy) in
compression, the response point was directed to move toward a point Y" (2Dyc, -2Fy) from a point P
(Dp, Fp) on the bilinear relation:
D p = D yc + ( D x D yc )
where,
stiffness changing point. This rule was introduced to reduce an unbalanced force at the compressive
characteristic point Y' due to a large stiffness change. The compressive characteristic point Y' did
not change under any loading history.
This axial-stiffness hysteresis model was used for the axial deformation of an independent
column as well as boundary columns of a wall.
Slip Model: Reinforced concrete
members exhibit slip-type (pinching)
behavior before a wide crack closes or
when longitudinal reinforcing bars slip
after bond deterioration. The slip-type
behavior is characterized by a small
stiffness during reloading at low
resistance level after a large amplitude
deformation in the opposite direction
and by the gradual increase in
stiffness with deformation.
Tanabashi and Kaneta (1962) used
a slip model with elasto-plastic
skeleton curve and zero slip stiffness in their nonlinear response analysis. No hysteresis energy was
dissipated until the response point exceeded the previous maximum response point.
57
A finite stiffness may be assigned to the slip stiffness and a stress hardening may start to occur
before the initiation of slip at preceding unloading.
Bond Slip Model: Morita and Kaku
(1984) proposed a hysteresis model to
represent the bond stress-bar slip relation
on the basis of their observation of the
test results. The model is prepared for
assuming various loading situations and
may be useful in a finite element analysis
of a reinforced concrete member.
Bond Stress
Slip
Bond Stress
Bond Stress
Slip
Slip
References:
Fillipou, F. C., E. P. Popov and V. V. Bertero, Effect of Bond Deterioration on Hysteretic Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Joints, Report No. EERC 83-19, University of California, Berkeley, August
1983, 184 pp.
Fillipou, F. C., E. P. Popov and V. V. Bertero, Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Joints under Cyclic
Excitations, Journal, Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 11, November 1983, pp.
2666 - 2684.
Fillipou, F. C., A Simplified Model for Reinforcing Bar Anchorages under Cyclic Excitations, Report
No. EERC 85-05, University of California, Berkeley, March 1985, 61 pp.
Kabeyasawa, T., H. Shiohara, S. Otani and H. Aoyama, "Analysis of the Full-scale Seven-story
Reinforced Concrete Test Structure," Journal, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo (B),
Vol. XXXVII, No. 2, 1983, pp. 432-478.
Li, K.-N., S. Otani and H. Aoyama, "Study on the Elastic-plastic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Columns subjected to Bi-directional Horizontal Earthquake Forces and Varying Axial Load (in
Japanese)," Report, Aoyama Laboratory, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering,
58
59
mA
mB = mA
B = A
Trilinear Skeleton Relation: The two points to define a trilinear skeleton curve may be estimated as
follows.
(1) Initial elastic stiffness K1 is calculated for a prismatic line member considering flexural and
shear deformation:
K1 =
L
L
+
3Ec I c Gc Ac
2
where L : member length from the face of the orthogonal member to the inflection point (0ne-half of
clear span or height), Ec and Gc : elastic and shear moduli of concrete, I e : moment of inertia of
the transformed concrete section, Ac : cross sectional area of the transformed concrete section,
M c = ( t +
c =
Pe
) Ze
Ac
Mc
K1
where, Pe : axial force acting on the section including effective prestressing force, Ac : cross
sectional area of concrete, Z e : section modulus of the transformed section. Tensile strength
concrete may be assumed to be equal to 1.8
concrete is expressed in kgf/cm2.
t of
(3) Yielding moment M y should be calculated for a given axial force and effective prestressing
force assuming (a) plain section to remain plain after bending, (b) nonlinear axial stress-strain
relation of concrete and reinforcement, and (c) equilibrium of internal and external forces. A parabola
and straight descending line may be used to represent stress-strain relation of concrete in
compression; an elasto-plastic stress-strain relation may be used for steel reinforcement ignoring
strain hardening.
Rotation
y at yielding may be evaluated by integrating the curvature along the member, but
this often underestimates the deformation. Sugano (1970) proposed an empirical expression for the
60
My
a
N
d
+ 0.33
}( )2
K1
D
b D B D
where n : modular ratio of steel to concrete, pt :
= {0.43 + 1.64n pt + 0.043
My
Moment
y =
y K1
Mc
MA
K1
A c
Rotation
point is used for the hysteresis relation of a prestressed concrete member. Moment resistance M A
of the characteristic point is defined as decompression moment; i.e., for the effective prestressing
force Pe,
Pe
Ze
Ac
MA =
The moment is zero for a reinforced concrete member without prestressing force. Rotation
A is
A =
MA
K1
(2) Characteristic point B ( B , M B ) is defined for Takeda hysteresis model (Takeda, Sozen and
Nielsen, 1970) as the terminal point (zero moment resistance) of unloading from the maximum
response point M ( m , M m ). The unloading stiffness K B is defined as follows;
(a) unloading before yielding:
KB =
M m M 'c
m 'c
KB =
M y M 'c m
( )
y 'c y
y : yield moment and rotation on the side of the unloading point, M 'c and 'c :
cracking moment and rotation on the opposite side, and : unloading stiffness degradation index of
the Takeda model (=0.5 for normal reinforced concrete members). The rotation B is calculated as
where M y and
B = m
Mm
KB
61
Moment
Moment
Mm
KB
'c
C
A
Rotation
'c
KB
Rotation
M 'c
My
M 'c
(3) Unloading stiffness K A of fully prestressed concrete members from the maximum response
point M ( m , M m ) on the skeleton curve is defined as follows;
Moment
My
M
Moment
Mm
C
MA
Mm
KA
C
KA
MA
A
Rotation
Rotation
KA =
Mm M A
m A
KA =
M y M A m
( )
y A y
(4) Unloading stiffness K D of this model from the maximum response point M ( m , M m ) on the
skeleton curve is defined by index ' taking into consideration the characteristics of both reinforced
concrete and fully prestressed concrete members.
K D = ' K A + (1 ') K B
(5) Characteristic point D ( D , M D ) is defined as an intersection of line AB and the unloading line
MD of this model with unloading stiffness K D from the maximum response point M( m , M m ) on the
62
skeleton curve.
Moment
Moment
Mm
M
Mm
MA
KD
KD
MA
A
D
A
D
Rotation
Rotation
A B
MA
MD
=
A B D B
: line AB
Mm MD
= KD
: line MD
m D
The moment resistance M D is thus solved from the two simultaneous equations as
M
m B m
KD
MD = MA
M
A B A
KD
(6) Unloading stiffness K E after reaching characteristic point D
(6-1) No yielding has taken place on the unloading side:
K E = K1 (initial elastic stiffness)
(a-1) The terminal point of this unloading stiffness is point E at moment level equal to moment
M ' A of characteristic point A on the opposite side if no cracking has taken place on the
opposite side.
(a-2) The terminal point of this unloading stiffness is point E at moment level equal to moment
M 'D of characteristic point D, which was defined during unloading after cracking on the
other side.
(6-2) Yielding has already occurred on the unloading side,
m
)
y
K '1 = K1 (
KB =
M y M 'c m
( )
y 'c y
m is the maximum response rotation where the unloading initiated. The terminal
point of this unloading stiffness is point E at moment level equal to moment M 'D of
characteristic point D in the opposite direction.
63
KB =
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
M y M 'c m
( )
y 'c y
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
The index value from 0.4 to 0.5 is normally used for reinforced concrete members. The hysteresis
energy dissipation decreases with increasing value of the index.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
of prestressing reinforcement
The effect of prestressing on unloading stiffness is negligible when the ultimate moment ratio was
less than 0.3.
64
Hysteresis Rules:
Rule 1: Before flexural cracking at C ( c , M c ), the
Rule 3
Moment
My
Rule 2
K2
C
Mc
Rule 1
with stiffness K 2 .
K1
Rotation
KA =
Mm M A
m A
KB =
M m M 'c
m 'c
Moment
Y
M
Mm
C
MA
K D = ' K A + (1 ') K B
KD
A
D
A B
Rotation
Mm
KD
MD = MA
M
A B A
KD
m B
Mm
KD
K1
Sub-rule 2-1
D
B
Sub-rule 2-2-1
K E = K1
No cracking in
A
E
Sub-rule 2-2-2: The response point moves
reloading
elastically from the characteristic point D ( D , M D )
direction
Rule 4
of Sub-rule 2-1 to point E whose moment level is
C
equal to moment level M 'D of characteristic point
D in the direction of reloading. The unloading
stiffness K E is equal to the initial elastic stiffness K1 . Point D and its moment M 'D have
been defined by Sub-rule 2-1 or
M
Sub-rule 3-1 upon previous unloading
Mm
from point M ( 'm , M 'm ) on the second
skeleton line.
Sub-rule 2-1
K1
A
KD
MD
D
B
Sub-rule 2-2-2
E
Rule 4
Cracked in
reloading
direction
KA =
M y M A m
( )
y A y
KB =
M y M 'c m
( )
y 'c y
Mu
My
K D = ' K A + (1 ') K B
where yielding point Y ( y , M y ) is on the side of
maximum response point M (
Rule 3
Sub-rule 3-1
m , M m ) and
KD
D
B
M
m B m
KD
MD = MA
M
A B A
KD
The response is elastic between unloading point M and characteristic point D.
If the response point reaches the unloading point M, the response point follows Rule 3 for
loading on the third skeleton line.
If the response point reaches the
characteristic point D ( D , M D ) of unloading,
the response point follows Sub-rule 3-2.
M
Y
KD
A
Sub-rule 3-1
MD
KE
m
)
y
K '1 = K1 (
Sub-rule 3-2-1
M y M 'c m
KB =
( )
y 'c y
A
C
Rule 4
M 'A
No cracking on
opposite side
The previous response point M on the side of point E is defined as the yielding point Y.
The unloading stiffness K 'D from the yield point is defined as
KA =
KB =
M ' y M 'A
'y 'A
M 'y M c
'y c
K D = ' K A + (1 ') K B
Characteristic point D is defined as the intersection of the unloading line MD and line AB
connecting two characteristic points A and B. The moment M D at point D is given by
My
KD
MD = MA
M
A B A
KD
y B
If the response point reaches point D, the response point follows Sub-rule 3-1.
If the response point reaches point E, the response point follows Rule 4.
Sub-rule 3-2-2: The response
point moves elastically on line DE
with unloading stiffness K E . The
M
Y
m
)
y
K '1 = K1 (
KB =
Sub-rule 3-1
M y M 'c m
( )
y 'c y
D
B
KE
Sub-rule 3-2-2
Rule 4
Cracking
direction
in
reloading
If the response point reaches point D, the response point follows Sub-rule 3-1.
If the response point reaches point E, then the response point follows Rule 4.
Rule 4: The response point moves on line EM toward the previous maximum response point M
( 'm , M 'm ) in the direction of reloading. The characteristic point E is defined either in Sub-rule 2-2
or 3-2.
68
When the response point reaches the previous maximum response point M in the direction of
reloading, the response point follows either Rule 2 if no yielding has taken place or Rule 3 if yielding
has taken place in the direction of reloading.
If unloading takes place at point N before reaching the previous maximum response point, the
response point follows Sub-rule 4-1.
C
M
Y
KD
MD
D
A
'm
B
D
K E = K1
K 'D
N
C
M
M 'm
Sub-rule 4-1: The response point moves on line NF with unloading stiffness K 'D where
point N is an unloading point before the response point reaches the previous maximum
response point M in Sub-rule 2-2 or
M
3-2. Point F is defined on the
Y
unloading line NF at moment level
M 'D
of
equal
to
moment
characteristic
point
D.
The
K 'D
,
unloading
stiffness
characteristic point D and its
C
KD
moment M 'D were defined during
KD
previous unloading from point M
A
( 'm , M 'm ) on the skeleton curve in
G
MD
D
Sub-rule 2-1 or 3-1.
B
KE
K 'D
N
Y
69
A
C
M 'D
M 'A
Sub-rule 4-2: The response point follows line FG with unloading (reloading) stiffness K 'E
where characteristic point F is defined in Sub-rule 4-1. The moment level of point G is equal
to moment M D of characteristic point D. The characteristic point D and its moment M 'D
were defined during previous unloading from point M ( 'm , M 'm ) on the skeleton curve in
Sub-rule 2-1 or 3-1. The unloading stiffness K 'E depends on the previous maximum
response on the unloading side;
(a) If no yielding has taken place on the unloading side, the unloading stiffness K 'E is
equal to the initial elastic stiffness K1 .
(b) If yielding has taken place on the unloading side, the unloading stiffness is given
below;
K '1 = K1 (
KB =
m
)
y
M ' y M c 'm
(
)
'y c 'y
70
71
Elastic Element
kA
kB
B
B
mB
Rotational Spring
Rigid Element
F
Fy
kp=0.02ky
ku
ky
Dy
D
Dm
k p = 0.02k y
k u = k y ( Dm / D y )
in which, k p : post-yielding stiffness, k u : unloading stiffness, k y : initial elastic stiffness, Dm :
maximum deformation beyond the yield displacement D y ,
coefficient (= 0.4).
A member end moment-rotation relation was calculated for the anti-symmetric moment distribution
using the discrete element model. The calculated member end moment-rotation relation was
idealized into a bilinear relationship connecting the yield point and a point corresponding to rotational
ductility factor (a ratio of a rotation divided by the yield rotation) of 9.0. The Clough hysteresis model
was also used for a member end moment-rotation relation on the basis of the skeleton relation
calculated by the discrete spring model. The unloading degradation factor for a member end
moment-rotation relation was estimated to be 0.43 for the discrete spring model under load reversal
at a rotational ductility factor of 9.0.
The stiffness properties of the one-component mode, multi-component model and distributed
flexibility modes are determined on the basis of a hysteresis model provided for the member end
moment-rotation relation under an imaginary anti-symmetric moment distribution along the member.
Note that the actual member end rotation is not necessarily identical to the rotation given by the
hysteresis model, or the member stiffness identical to the stiffness given by the corresponding
hysteresis model.
Response under Uniform Bending: A hysteresis mA
mB
model is derived for a member end moment-rotation
relation under the anti-symmetric moment distribution.
A
B
The use of such a hysteresis relation for a loading
B
A
situation drastically different from the anti-symmetric
moment distribution is expected to clarify the
Member under uniform bending
difference in the performance of the member models.
Therefore, the member models are subjected to a
stress history of uniform bending moment distribution along the member, although such a uniform
bending moment distribution is not expected to develop in a member during an earthquake.
A simply supported member was
subjected to external moments, m A and
10
15
20
The difference among the four models was observed in the post yield stiffness. The post yield
stiffness of a member end moment-rotation relation must be identical to the that of the
moment-curvature relation because a uniform bending moment was applied; the member end
rotation should be equal to ( L / 4) ; i.e. the post yielding stiffness should be 0.02 of the initial
stiffness.
2
The one component model exhibited the highest post-yield stiffness, more than 13 percent of the
initial stiffness because the model does not consider the distribution of curvature along the member.
The multi-component model and the distributed flexibility model developed 5 percent of the initial
stiffness.
Response
under
Predetermined
Displacement History: A simply sup-ported
member is subjected to member end rotations A
Ductility factor
A end
B end
(b) B end
(a) A end
The moment-rotation relation in the second cycle (load stages 5 to 8 in the loading history) after
yielding in the first cycle is compared for the four models. The hysteresis area is much thinner at A
end than at B end; the hysteresis loops were generally thin at A end. Lager hysteresis energy is
dissipated at A-end by the one-component model compared to the other two models. The post
yielding stiffness is highest for the one-component model as observed in the member end
moment-rotation relation at B end. The response of the multi-component model is closer to that of the
discrete element model.
Earthquake Response of Two-story One-bay Frame: A two-story one-bay frame is analyzed under
El Centro (NS) 1940 earthquake motion, the acceleration amplitude is scaled to the maximum
acceleration of 3.90 m/sec2. The one component model and the multi-component model are used in
the analysis.
response at the roof level and base shear response were compared.
One-component model
Multi-component model
Distributed flexibility model
4.0
-4.0
15
-15
2.0
-2.0
Roof-level Displacement, cm
15
-15
8.0
-8.0
c * = cm m + ck k *
An instantaneous damping factor h
h* =
may be defined as
2 mk *
c
= m
2
m ck
+
k*
2
k*
m
Note that, with the degradation of stiffness, the instantaneous damping factor h * associated with
the mass increases and that associated with the instantaneous stiffness tends to decrease.
A hysteresis model includes the hysteresis energy dissipation, and it may not be reasonable to
expect additional energy dissipation by the damping during inelastic oscillation. A constant
mass-proportional damping tends to exaggerate the damping effect.
For a given earthquake motion, the degree of damping effect on the response may depend on (a)
type of damping, (b) period of vibration, (c) capacity of hysteresis energy dissipation, and (d) level of
ductility demand. The effect of damping is studied from these view points.
Type of Damping: Mass-proportional
damping is expected to be more effective
reducing the response amplitude where
many cycles of oscillation occurs with
highly degraded stiffness. On the contrary,
instantaneous
stiffness-proportional
damping is effective during oscillation in a
small ductility range.
Attained ductility of the Takeda model
with an unloading stiffness degradation
parameter of 0.0 is compared. The
"yielding
period"
of
single-degree-of-freedom systems was
varied from 0.14 sec to 1.13 sec. Taft
(N21E) record was used as an excitation
function.
The system with mass-proportional
damping produced small displacement
response
than
that
with
stiffness-proportional damping having the
Effect of types of damping
same initial damping factor. With an
increase in the value of initial damping
factor, the mass proportional damping is
more effective in reducing the response
amplitude. This tendency is larger for a shorter period system. The response amplitudes of systems
with stiffness-proportional damping are not so sensitive to the increase in the value of initial damping
factor partially attributable to the fact that the hysteretic energy dissipation is appreciable when the
unloading stiffness degradation parameter was 0.0. When the initial damping factor is made of
equal contributions for the mass-proportional damping and the stiffness-proportional damping, the
mass-proportional damping tends to have a dominant influence on the maximum response.
7
Period and Ductility Range: The effect of mass-proportional damping on maximum response is
pronounced, and the mass-proportional damping was found useful to exaggerate the damping effect
and to clarify a general trend of the damping effect of maximum response. Therefore, the
mass-proportional damping is used to study the variation of maximum response with the amount of
damping.
Single-degree-of-freedom (SDF)
systems with the Takeda hysteresis
model (unloading stiffness degrading
parameter = 0.0) were subjected
to Taft (N21E) 1952 earthquake
motion. The yielding period was
selected to be 0.14 sec and 1.13 sec.
The yield resistance level was varied
to control the maximum ductility
response and to study the effect of
damping at different ductility ranges.
The initial damping factor was varied
from zero to 20 percent of the
critical.
The maximum response is
Effect of damping with yield level and period
reduced significantly with increasing
damping amplitude in short-period
systems (Ty = 0.14 sec), but is not so
much affected in long-period systems
(Ty = 1.13 sec). The general trend of
decreasing response amplitude with logarithmically increasing damping amplitude is observed for
both high and low ductility ranges.
Hysteretic Energy Dissipation Capacity: Some models have large hysteretic energy dissipation
8
capacity, and others have small capacity. The latter model can dissipate kinetic energy only through
viscous damping, hence its response amplitude is likely affected by the amount of viscous damping.
The effect of damping on the response amplitude of single-degree-of-freedom systems with a
Takeda hysteresis model (unloading stiffness degrading parameter = 0.0) and a Peak-oriented
hysteresis model is studied under the Taft (N21E) 1952 earthquake motion. The yield period of the
systems was selected to be 0.14 sec and 1.13 sec.
The response point of the Peak-oriented hysteresis model moves toward a previous maximum
response point in the loading direction, and the model behavior is linearly elastic between the positive
and negative maximum response points without any hysteretic energy dissipation. Once the
response point reaches the previous maximum response point, it moves on the primary curve.
The maximum response of the Peak-oriented model at a yielding period of 0.14 sec was too large,
and the yield resistance was increased by 50 percent from the standard value to reduce the response
amplitude.
Note that the amount of damping has a larger influence on the response ductility of the
Peak-oriented models, especially in the short-period systems. The difference in ductility of the two
models was relatively small in the long-period systems.
It should be noted that the viscous damping dissipated energy even at a small amplitude
oscillation as long as there exists velocity. Hysteresis energy is dissipated at a large amplitude
oscillation beyond yielding. Therefore, the viscous damper is more effective in reducing response
amplitudes.
Eh = 0.11
Eh = 0.11
Eh = 0.14
Eh = 0.19
Eh = 0.21
Clough Model ( = 0.0):
Eh = 0.23
Takeda Model ( = 0.0):
Ramberg-Osgood Model( =1.0; = 3.79): Eh = 0.28
Bilinear Model ( = 0.0):
Eh = 0.33
where, : unloading stiffness degradation index. Note that a large discrepancy exists among the
models in the capacity to dissipate hysteretic energy under a steady-state condition. the unloading
stiffness degradation prameter has an appreciable effect on the value of hysteretic energy
dissipation index.
Damping: Viscous damping was assumed; the damping coefficient was assumed to be proportional
to varying instantaneous stiffness. The damping factor was 5 percent of the critical at the initial
elastic stage.
The damping is assumed to be proportional to instantaneous stiffness, where the maximum
response of an SDF system is not so sensitive to the amplitude of initial damping factor. Therefore,
an initial elastic damping factor of 0.05 is used for a system with bilinear primary curve, and 0.0707
for a system with tri-linear primary curve. In this manner, the damping factor of all the system is
made identical at the yielding period because the pre-cracking stiffness of a tri-linear primary curve
is chosen twice the yielding stiffness.
Earthquake
Motions:
Four
earthquake accelerograms from two
California earthquakes were used in
this study: the NS and EW
components of the 1940 El Centro
record and the N21E and S69E
components of the 1952 Taft record,
digitized at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign (Amin and
Ang, 1966).
Linearly elastic response spectra
of these four records were studied
using the entire duration and the
first 15 sec part of the records. The
damped spectra were almost
identical for a period range less
than 2.0 sec using either the entire
duration or the first 15 sec part
except for the El Centro (EW)
record. Consequently, the response
computation
was
terminated
approximately at 15 sec when the
Taft (N21E and S69E) and El
Centro (NS) records were used. On
the other hand, the maximum
Earthquake accelerograms
response of some linearly elastic
systems under the El Centro (EW)
motion occurred after 15 sec. Therefore, the entire 30 sec record of the El Centro (EW) motion was
2
used.
The response spectra of the four motions are shown below:
Numerical Method: The equation of motion was solved numerically using the Newmark- method
(Newmark, 1959) with =1/6 and =1/2. Both the equation of motion and the displacement velocity - acceleration relations were satisfied only at the discrete time step using an iterative
procedure. In other words, the "overshooting" of the hysteresis curve was adjusted within the time
step.
A constant time increment of the numerical integration was taken either as one-twentieth the
initial elastic period or 0.02 sec, whichever was shorter. The former was necessary to faithfully trace
the hysteresis curve rather than numerical stability requirements. The latter criterion became
necessary because the earthquake accelerograms were given at a 0.02 sec interval.
3
ky
Fc
D
Maximum response of the Takeda models is compared by varying the stiffness ratio, keeping a
cracking-to-yielding resistance ratio to be one-third and secant yield stiffness the same. When an
attained ductility is greater than 4.0, the effect of initial stiffness is minimal for both short-period and
intermediate-period systems. It is expected, however, that the initial stiffness should influence
maximum response amplitude if an attained ductility is less than or around unity.
ky
Fc
D
a large value of the parameter, peak amplitudes are larger both in the positive and negative
directions, having comparable amplitudes in the two directions. For smaller values of the parameter,
the system tends to produce large amplitude only in one direction. This is clearly observed in the
hysteretic curve. Peak-to-peak stiffness in a low amplitude oscillation is lower for a system with a
larger parameter, causing a long period of oscillation from approximately 6.0 sec.
The effect of the unloading stiffness degradation parameter is significant on response amplitude,
response waveform, residual displacement and hysteresis shape.
The response of two degrading tri-linear models is shown above. The yielding period is 0.4 sec. The
two systems were subjected to the 1940 El Centro (NS) motion. A significant difference in hysteresis
shape can be observed. The response up to the first large oscillation is similar, but difference started
to be apparent in subsequent response cycles in the response waveform.
10
11
12
Although the Newmark's design criteria appear to be acceptable for the El Centro (NS) 1940
motion, the other three earthquake motions caused attained ductility factors much greater than the
allowable value at the various periods. In general, the design criteria are not satisfactory in a very
short-period range, for example less than 0.15 sec. Distribution of maximum response with periods
is different from one earthquake motion to another, showing an irregular shape, although each
hysteresis models was designed on the basis of elastic response of individual earthquake motion.
On the other hand, distribution of maximum response with periods is similar from one hysteresis
model to another for a given earthquake motion, implying that maximum response amplitudes of
different hysteresis models can be made comparable if hysteresis parameters of each model are
properly adjusted.
13
For an unloading stiffness degradation parameter of 0.5, the Takeda, Clough and Degrading
Bilinear models developed comparable ductility factors. The Degrading Trilinear model also
developed ductility factors similar in magnitude to those three models at corresponding periods.
Therefore, maximum response amplitudes are not as sensitive to detail difference in hysteretic
rules of these models, but rather are influenced by more basic characteristics of hysteresis loops,
such as stiffness properties to define a primary curve and the fatness (hysteretic energy dissipating
capacity) of a hysteresis loop.
14
References:
Amin, M., and A. H.-S. Ang, "A Nonstationary Model for Strong Motion Earthquakes," Structural
Research Series No. 306, Civil Engineering Study, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1966.
Otani, S, "Hysteresis Models of Reinforced Concrete for Earthquake Response Analysis," Journal,
Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Vol. XXXVI, No. 2, 1981, pp. 125-156.
Newmark, N. M., "A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics," Journal, Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, No. EM3, 1959, pp. 67-94.
Veletsos, A. S., and N.M. Newmark, "Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the Response of Simple
Systems to Earthquake Motions," Proceedings, Second World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, 1960, Vol. II, pp. 895-912.
16
17
18
Time histories of displacement response at the roof-level are compared. Although the
displacement response waveforms of the Takeda-slip model deviated from those of the Takeda
model, attained maximum response amplitudes are comparable. Large drift was noted more
frequently in the response waveforms of the Takeda-slip models.
The attained story drift angles are compared. The maximum beam ductility factor of 4.0 was
adopted to determine the intensity of ground motion. The maximum drift angle was smaller than 1/50
rad in the three structures with the Takeda model. The story drift angle increased slightly with the
use of the Takeda-slip model, by dissipating less kinetic energy; the story drift angle exceeded 1/50
rad in the 16-story building using the Takeda-slip model with small hysteresis energy dissipation
capacity.
The attained ductility factors at beam ends are compared. The distribution of beam-end ductility
factors of a structure with the Takeda model is similar to that with the Takeda-slip model (equivalent
damping factor he = 0.15). The change in the energy dissipating capacity in terms of equivalent
viscous damping factors did not affect the ductility demand appreciably.
20
21
22
References:
Giberson, M. F., "The Response of Nonlinear Multi-story Structures subjected to Earthquake
Excitation," EERL Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, 1967.
Kabeyasawa, T., H. Shiohara, S. Otani and H. Aoyama, "Analysis of the Full-scale Seven-story
Reinforced Concrete Test Structure," Journal, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo (B), Vol.
XXXVII, No. 2, 1983, pp. 432-478.
Kitayama, K., "Limitation of Beam Bar Bond Deterioration within Beam-column Joint," Earthquake
Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Structures, A Volume Honoring Hiroyuki Aoyama, November
1993, pp. 297 - 306.
Takeda, T., M. A. Sozen and N. N. Nielsen, "Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated
Earthquakes," Journal, Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. ST12, 1970, pp. 2557-2573.
23
An old building preceding demolition may be tested in an inelastic range under harmonic excitation.
The behavior of the structure to failure in such a test is significantly different from the behavior during
an earthquake because the structure may fail in low-cycle fatigue mode under steady-state excitation.
Small-scale model specimens are normally used to study the failing behavior due to the limitation
in the capacity of testing facilities or in the research funds. To study the behavior during an
earthquake, specimens may be tested on an earthquake simulator.
In testing a small scale test, the similitude laws must be carefully studied. The basic dimensions
for physical problem are force (mass), length and time. The relations between a proto-type and model
may be expressed as
Fm = a1 F p
Lm = a 2 L p
Tm = a 3T p
Once the three scale factors a1, a2 and a3 are selected, then other properties must be determined;
e.g.,
Fm a1
=
p
L2m a 22
F
a
Youngs modulus: E m = 2m = 12 E p
Lm a2
Stress:
m =
Lm a 2
=
vp
Tm a 3
L
a
Acceleration: a m = m2 = 22 a p
Tm a3
Velocity: v m =
Material properties (strength and stiffness) must satisfy the similitude laws although every property
cannot be satisfied by a scaled model. Note that the gravity acceleration must be the same in the
prototype and model environments.
When a small-scale test specimen is used in a dynamic test, the scale effect should be carefully
studied. The behavior of a specimen is sometimes influenced by its size; especially in shear failure
and bond failure in the reinforced concrete.
The pseudo-dynamic (on-line) testing method is also used in the laboratory, in which the response
of a specimen under given earthquake motion is calculated by a computer on the basis of the
observed resistance of the specimen; explicit numerical integration technique is used to determine
the displacement response at the next time step.
The test on an earthquake simulator may be classified into two types; (a) a proof test of a
particular structure against design earthquake excitation, in which the test specimen must represent
necessary stiffness and dynamic characteristics of the proto-type structure and the excitation motion
must be carefully selected considering the soil properties of the construction site, and (b) a behavioral
test of a general structure, the test results of which may be used to understand the general behavior
and to test the reliability of an analytical method. The specimen for the behavioral test should
represent a mathematical model of a general structure rather than an actual structure. The difference
in the two types of testing lies in the design of a specimen and selection of loading function, but the
testing technique is the same.
Reference:
1. Foutch, D. A., "A Study of the Vibrational Characteristics of Two Multistory Buildings," EERL 76-03,
Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, September
1976.
Wire
Section
Unit
The lateral force resistance-deformation at the top of the specimen was calculated to define the
primary curve. Cracking moment was calculated for modulus of rupture concrete using the flexural
theory. The cracking deformation was calculated for the elastic stiffness and cracking moment. Yield
moment was calculated using the parabolic stress-strain relation of concrete and the elasto-plastic
stress-strain of reinforcement. The yield deflection was calculated as the sum of (a) deflection caused
by curvature based on cracked section, (b) deflection caused by slip of the reinforcement (assuming
uniform anchorage bond over 20 bar diameter) and depression of semi-infinite plate under flexural
compression stress at the beam-column interface, (c) deflection caused by deformation of the test
platform (observed in a static test), and (d) the shearing deflection. The deflection was dominated by
parts (a) and (b) above.
Cycle 4
Load, kips
Load, kips
Cycle 1
Displ., inch
kips
Displ., inch
Cycle 8
Load, kips
Load
Cycle 6
Displ., inch
Displ., inch
Observed
Calculated
The force-deflection relation obtained by a static test is compared with the hysteresis relation of
the Takeda model with the calculated primary curve. The model was subjected to the observed
deflection at the top. The overall behavior of the specimen and the model is generally similar.
In the earthquake simulator test, the time axis of earthquake motion was compressed to
one-eighth to satisfy the similitude relations (equal velocity, equal stress and scaled length) and the
capacity of the earthquake simulator. El Centro (NS) 1940 motion was simulated on the table. The
observed motion on the earthquake simulator table was used in the simulation analysis. Damping
factor was assumed to be zero and 2 percent of the critical; the damping coefficient was assumed to
remain constant (mass proportional damping).
The correlation was found more favorable with damping to 3.0 sec from the beginning of the
motion; however, the correlation was better without damping at around 3.5 sec probably because the
constant damping coefficient tends to dissipate more energy after the deterioration of stiffness with
damage.
The study showed that the analysis could simulate a complex behavior of the reinforced concrete
member in an inelastic range if the proper hysteresis model were to be used which was capable of
simulating static behavior under load reversals.
(a) Base acceleration
Acceleration, G
Time, sec
Reference
Takeda, T., M. A. Sozen, and N. N. Nielsen, "Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated
Earthquakes," Journal, Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. ST12, December 1970, pp. 2557 2573.
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight
Weight
The Takeda model (Takeda, Sozen and Nielsen, 1970) was used to simulate the hysteresis
relation under lateral force reversals. The unloading stiffness degradation index of the model was
determined on the basis of the static test. The story shear-inter-story deformation relations calculated
and observed in the static test agreed reasonably well.
The damping matrix was assumed to be proportional to initial stiffness, and the damping factor at
the initial elastic stage was determined to be 0.03 for the first mode on the basis of the free vibration
test conducted prior to the dynamic test.
The calculated and observed acceleration response waveforms are compared for test runs R2 and
R3. The columns in the three stories yielded in test run R3, but the analysis indicated no yielding in
the top story columns. The analysis could favorably simulate large amplitude oscillations.
Acceleration, G
Acceleration, G
Time, sec
Time, sec
Acceleration, G
Acceleration, G
Time, sec
Time, sec
Three-story One-bay Frame: A series of three-story one-bay plane frame structures were tested
uni-directional base motion on the University of Illinois earthquake simulator (Otani and Sozen, 1972).
Specimens were approximately one-sixth scale (=1/2.52) of an imaginary prototype structure; two
parallel frames were tested to attain the stability in the orthogonal direction. Rigid steel weight was
attached at beam end through mechanical hinges, modeling rigid floor diaphragm.
The dimensions and reinforcement are shown below;
Wire
Wire
Wire
Beam Section
Wire
Column section
Unit
As the similitude relations, the followings were chosen as the basic relations;
(a) Linear scale: Lm = (1/6.25) Lp
(b) Stress: m = p
(c) Acceleration: am = ap
where subscript m stands for model and p for prototype, and L: length, : stress, a: acceleration.
Linear scale was necessary to test a scaled model. Equal stress became necessary because the
materials used in the specimen were the same or similar to those used in a prototype structures;
strengths and elastic moduli of concrete and steel should be modeled. Equal acceleration was
adopted because the gravity acceleration could not be changed.
Three independent similitude relations can be selected in a dynamic model test. Some
researchers used equal velocity, instead of equal acceleration, as a criterion
The relations for forces and times can be derived from the chosen set of similitude relations; i.e.,
Fm F p
: equal stress
=
L2m L2p
Lm L p
: equal acceleration
=
Tm2 T p2
7
and
L
Fm = m
L
p
Tm =
Lp
L
Fp
Tp
Therefore, the time axis of an earthquake record is compressed by 2.5 in the test.
In an earthquake simulator test, a specimen is normally subjected to a series of excitations of
increasing magnitude. The excitation at a preceding test run may affect the response of the specimen
in the following test run.
The response waveforms of two specimens are compared under the same base motion; one
specimen (F1) was previously subjected to three test runs, doubling the magnitude after each test run,
and the other specimen (F2) was virgin at the test run.
Acceleration, G
Displacement, inch
The acceleration and displacement response waveforms were observed to be similar in the two
specimens. From this observation, the each test run of a reinforced concrete specimen may be
considered independent as long as (a) the behavior is governed by flexure without decay in
resistance and (b) large amplitude response occurs at the beginning of the motion.
Time, sec
Time, sec
The one-component model (Giberson, 1967) was used to represent the distribution of stiffness in
each member; the beam-column connection was assumed to be rigid. The moment-rotation relation
under monotonically increasing force at a member end was calculated for the anti-symmetric bending
moment distribution on the basis of observed material properties of the specimen. The Takeda
hysteresis model (Takeda, Sozen and Nielsen, 1970) was used to represent the force-deformation
relation under load reversals.
The deformation at a member end due to the bar slip of longitudinal reinforcement within a
beam-column connection was considered in the analysis; i.e., the elastic deformation of a tensile
longitudinal bar under uniform bond stress was calculated as the pull-out deformation, and the center
of rotation was assumed at the compressive reinforcement at the member end. The primary curve of
the moment-bar slip rotation relation was simplified to a bilinear relation and the Bilinear Takeda
model (Otani and Sozen, 1972) was used for the hysteresis relationship. However, the slip type
behavior of bar slip was not represented by the model.
The damping properties could not be determined by the material and geometrical properties of a
specimen. Therefore, two types of damping matrix were studied (Otani and Sozen, 1972); i.e., (a) a
8
damping matrix proportional to the constant mass matrix, and (b) a damping matrix proportional to the
instantaneous stiffness. The damping factor for the first mode at the initial elastic stage was selected
to be 0.02 or 0.10.
The test specimen was subjected to an intense base motion causing a first-story drift angle of 1/20
rad. Two response waveforms were studied; (a) the top-floor (relative) displacement response
governed by the fundamental mode of oscillation, and (b) the second-floor (absolute) acceleration
response with participation of higher modes.
Time, sec
The displacement response of the model using the instantaneous stiffness proportional damping
was not affected by the choice of the initial damping factor, but the higher frequency components in
the acceleration response was suppressed by the use of a larger initial damping factor; this
observation is consistent with the properties of elastic response using the stiffness proportional
damping.
9
The displacement amplitude was reduced by the use of large initial damping factor in the mass
proportional damping, but the value of initial damping factor did not influence the acceleration
response waveforms. The mass proportional damping has significant influence on the fundamental
mode response.
Time, sec
From the comparison of observed and calculated response waveforms, the mass proportional
damping must be small to better simulate the displacement response waveform, and must be large to
simulate the acceleration response waveform. The mass proportional damping may not be suited for
the simulation of the response of the particular specimen.
10
{x}i +1 {x}i
t
{x&}i +1 {x&}i
{&x&}i =
t
{x}i +1 {x}i {x}i {x}i 1
t
t
=
t
{x}i +1 2{x}i + {x}i 1
=
t 2
{x&}i +1 =
ti+1
ti
ti-1
--------------------------------------------xi
xi-1
xi+1
x& i +1
x& i
&x&i
The observed resistance {R}i+1 and calculated displacement {x}i+1 may be input to the above
relation to obtain the acceleration {&x&}i +1 .
11
This testing method was called "On-line test" or "Pseudo-dynamic test," originally developed by Dr.
M. Hakuno (1969) using an analog computer.
The method has been extensively used in various earthquake response tests (e.g., Okada and
Seki, 1979). The major advantages of the test method are that (a) the development of damage in the
specimen can be observed and (b) the hysteresis relations need not be assumed in the analysis. The
difficulty in the method is to evaluate the numerical stability associated with the accuracy in the
instrumentation and the procedure and sequence to apply the forced deformation to a
multi-degree-of-freedom system.
Teshigawara (1980) tested two-story one-bay frames. One specimen (specimen FDR-1) was
designed to form the beam yielding mechanism and the other specimen (specimen FDR-2) was
designed to form the story side-sway mechanism. The beam section was 150x180 mm, and the
column section 150x150 mm. The horizontal forces were applied at the mid-span of the beams.
Loading Device
Loading device
Steel
Steel
Loading device
Loading device
Steel
Steel
Unit
(b) Specimen FDR-2
In the analysis, one component model (Giberson, 1967) was used for beams and columns. The
moment-rotation relation was determined by first analyzing the moment-curvature relation of section
by the lamina model, and then member end rotation was assumed proportional to the member end
curvature for the inflection point at the mid-point of the member. The degrading trilinear model
(Fukada, 1969) was used to define the hysteresis relation.
The observed (solid line) and calculated (dashed line) second-floor displacement and first-story
shear waveforms are compared. The large amplitude oscillation was successfully reproduced by the
model, but calculated small to medium amplitude waveforms shows a shorter response period,
indicating the model stiffness was higher than the observed at a low stress level.
12
Calculated
Observed
Time, sec
Free vibration
(a) First story displacement (Test FDR-1)
Free vibration
Time, sec
Free vibration
Time, sec
Free vibration
Time, sec
13
References:
Clough, R. W., and J. Gidwani, Reinforced Concrete Frame 2; Seismic Testing and Analytical
Correlation, EERC Report 76-15, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California at Berkeley, 1976.
Eto, H., T. Takeda and Y. Omote, "Dynamic Destruction Test of Three-story One-span Reinforced
Concrete Frames (Part 1: Test Results) (in Japanese)," Report, AIJ Annual Meeting, October 1972,
pp. 1119 - 1120, and "ditto, (Part 2: Discussion on Test Results) (in Japanese)," Report, AIJ Kanto
District Meeting, 1973, pp. 45 - 48.
Fukada, Y., "Study on the Restoring Force Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Buildings (in
Japanese)," Proceedings, Kanto Branch Symposium, Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 40,
1969, pp. 121-124.
Giberson, M. F., "The Response of Nonlinear Multi-story Structures subjected to Earthquake
Excitation," EERL Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, 1967.
Hakuno, M., Shidawara, and Hara, "Dynamic Failure Test of Beams Controlled by Computer,"
Transactions, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, No. 171, November 1969.
Healey, T. J. and M. A. Sozen, Experimental Study of the Dynamic Response of a Ten-story
Reinforced Concrete Frame with a Tall First-story, Structural Research Series No. 450,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1978.
Hidalgo, P., and R. W. Clough, Earthquake Simulator Study of a Reinforced Concrete Frame, EERC
Report 74-13, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley,
1974.
Kabeyasawa, T., H. Shiohara, S. Otani and H. Aoyama, "Analysis of the Full-scale Seven-story
Reinforced Concrete Test Structure," Journal, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo (B), Vol.
XXXVII, No. 2, 1983, pp. 432-478.
Kunanath, S. K., and A. M. Reinhorn, Inelastic Three-dimensional Response Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Building Structure (IDARC-3D), Part 1- Modeling, Technical Report NCEER-89-0011,
State University of New York at Buffalo, New York, 1989.
Kunnath, S. K., A. M. Reinhorn, and Y. J. Park, Analytical Modeling of Inelastic Seismic Response of
R/C Structures, Proceedings, Journal, Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 4, April 1990,
pp. 996-10117.
Okada, T., and M. Seki, "Earthquake Response Testing of Reinforced Concrete Frames using
Computer-Actuator On-line System, Part 1: Objectives and Methodology (in Japanese),"
Transactions, Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 275, January 1979, pp. 25 - 31, "ditto, Part 2:
On-line Test 1 (in Japanese)," Transactions, AIJ, No. 279, May 1979, pp. 77 - 84, "ditto, Part 3:
On-line Test 2 (in Japanese)," Transactions, AIJ, No. 280, June 1979, pp. 79 - 89, "ditto, Part 4:
Discussion of Earthquake Response Characteristics (in Japanese)," Transactions, AIJ, No. 282,
August 1979, pp. 57 - 64.
Otani, S., "Earthquake Tests of Shear Wall-Frame Structures to Failure," Proceedings, ASCE/EMD
Specialty Conference, University of California at Los Angeles, March 1976, pp. 298 - 307.
Otani, S., and M. A. Sozen, "Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frames during
Earthquakes," Civil Engineering Studies, SRS No. 392, University of Illinois at Urbana, November
1972.
Otani, S., "Failure Test of Reinforced Concrete Structure, Data for Dynamic Analysis (in Japanese),"
Report, AIJ Annual Meeting, September 1980, pp. 1555 - 1556.
Roufail, M. S. L., and C. Meyer, Analytical Modeling of Hysteretic Behavior of R/C Frames,
Proceedings, ASCE, Journal, Structural Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 3, March 1987, pp. 429-444.
Takeda, T., M. A. Sozen and N. N. Nielsen, "Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated
Earthquakes," Journal, Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. ST12, 1970, pp. 2557-2573.
Teshigawara, M., "Simulation of Nonlinear Earthquake Response of Two-story Reinforced Concrete
Frames by Computer-Actuator On-line System," M. Eng. Thesis submitted to the University of
Tokyo, February 1980.
14
Beam
Weight
Wall
Reinf.
Beam
Column
Indented Wire
Unit
15
16
Column
Beam
Beam-column
joint
Wall
Member model
Sub-element
Beam end -1
Beam end -2
Test
Analysis
Hysteresis
models
Wall shear
Column, wall
element
Beam end -2
Beam-end -1
Acceleration, cm/sec2
Acceleration, cm/ssec2
Displacement, mm
Base motion
Time, sec
17
The amplitude of the exterior column axial load varies greatly due to the earthquake overturning
moment, and changes its moment-carrying capacity. Takayanagi and Schnobrich (1976) incorporated
the effect of axial force variation in the Takeda model by preparing various backbone curves at
different axial load levels.
18
Displ.
Acc.
Unit
19
The resistance-displacement relation at the top observed in the static test was favorably simulated
by the analysis.
The observed and calculated displacement response waveforms at the top are compared. The
Rayleigh-type damping, proportional to mass and initial stiffness, was assumed; the initial damping
factors for the first two modes were assumed to be 0.02. Large amplitude oscillation was reasonably
reproduced by the model, but small and medium amplitude response was not.
Reference:
Load, kgf
Displacement,
Drift
Test
Analysis
20
Observed in Test R1
Observed in Test R2
Time, sec
21
Brief Description
Free and forced vibration tests
Pseudo-dynamic earthquake test
Modified Miyagi-ken Oki Earthquake (1978)
Tohoku University Record (NS), amax*= 23.5 Gal
Rmax**= 2.52 mm, Smax***= 31.5 tonf
PSD-2
Pseudo-dynamic earthquake test
Modified Miyagi-ken Oki Earthquake (1978)
Tohoku University Record (NS), amax*= 105 Gal
Rmax**= 32.5 mm, Smax***= 226 tonf
PSD-3
Pseudo-dynamic earthquake test
Modified Tehachapi Shock (1952)
Taft Record (EW), amax*= 320 Gal
Rmax**= 238 mm, Smax***= 411 tonf
PSD-4
Pseudo-dynamic earthquake test
Modified Tokachi-oki Earthquake (1968)
Hachinohe Harbor Record (EW), amax*= 350 Gal
Rmax**= 342 mm, Smax***= 439 tonf
VT-2
Free and forced vibration tests
Repair of test structure by epoxy injection
VT-3
Free and forced vibration tests
Placement of non-structural elements in test structure
PSD-5
Pseudo-dynamic earthquake test
Modified Miyagi-ken Oki Earthquake (1978)
Tohoku University Record (NS), amax*= 23.5 Gal
Rmax**= 3.03 mm, Smax***= 26.7 tonf
PSD-6
Pseudo-dynamic earthquake test
Modified Miyagi-ken Oki Earthquake (1978)
Tohoku University Record (NS), amax*= 105 Gal
Rmax**= 65.3 mm, Smax***= 234 tonf
PSD-7
Pseudo-dynamic earthquake test
Modified Tehachapi Shock (1952)
Taft Record (EW), amax*= 320 Gal
Rmax**= 244 mm, Smax***= 452 tonf
SL
Static test under uniform load distribution
Rmax**= 326 mm, Smax***= 597 tonf
*amax: maximum acceleration of input ground motion
**Rmax: maximum roof level displacement
***Smax: maximum base shear
the beam-to-column joint regions. Cross ties in the first-story independent columns were provided at
a 10-cm spacing over the first 60 cm above the foundation, and at a 60-cm spacing elsewhere. Cross
ties in the boundary columns of the shear wall were provided at a 10-cm spacing over the full height
of the first three stories except in the beam-to-column joint regions, and at a 60-cm spacing
elsewhere.
The shear wall, parallel to the direction of loading, was reinforced with 2-D10 bars at a spacing of
20 cm in the horizontal and vertical directions. The horizontal wall reinforcement was anchored into
the boundary columns, and the vertical wall reinforcement into the foundation.
Reinforcement details for the floor slabs at the second through the roof levels are shown in Fig. 11.
Different spacing was used in the column strips, middle strips and in the cantilevered portion of the
floor slabs.
Materials: Deformed bars were used in the constructions of the test structure. The grade of
reinforcing steel was SD35. Geometrical and mechanical properties are listed in Table 2 taken from
Reference 1. All bars showed a clear yield plateau after yielding up to a strain of 0.012 to 0.022,
depending on the bar size.
The ready-mixed concrete was used in the test structure. Following the Japanese construction
practices, the concrete was placed in columns of a story and into beams and slabs immediately
above the columns in a single job. The mechanical properties of the concrete are listed in Table 3.
The values were obtained from the tests of 15 x 30-cm2 standard cylinders cured in the field. The
sixth and the seventh story concrete strengths were found to be significantly weaker than the
specified strength of 270 kgf/cm2. However, the compression tests on standard cured cylinders did
not show such a change in concrete strength (1). The tensile strength was determined by the splitting
test of cylinders.
Method of Testing: Test of the full-scale seven-story structure was carried out using "SDF Pseudo
Dynamic Earthquake Response Test Procedure". The theoretical background is outlined by Okamoto
et al. (2). The summary is given below.
The equation of motion of a multi-degree-of-freedom system without damping can be written in a
matrix form;
[m]{&&
x} + { f } = [m]{1}&&
y
(1)
in which [ m] : mass matrix, { f } : restoring force vector (resistance of structure), {&x&} : structural
response acceleration vector relative to the base, {1} : vector consisting of unit elements, and &y& :
ground acceleration.
In order to reduce the number of degrees of freedom to one, the structure was assumed to
oscillate in a single "governing" mode. The restoring force distribution pattern was assumed to remain
unchanged during an earthquake. In other words,
{ f } = {v} f R
(2)
in which {v} : constant vector, each element of which represents the lateral resistance amplitude
normalized to the roof-level resistance amplitude f R .
Under the specified distribution of the lateral resistance (or loads), the structure would deform in a
certain shape, reflecting the stiffness distribution of the structure. Namely, the "mode shape" {u}
and its "amplitude" q .
5
{x} = {u}q
(3)
If the mode shape is normalized to the roof-level amplitude, the value of q represents a
roof-level lateral displacement xR . Displacement distribution vector {u} normally varies with
stiffness deterioration associated with structural damage. However, the deflected shape pattern did
not change appreciably regardless of load amplitudes in a preliminary analysis of the test structure
under an inverted triangular distribution of lateral loads. Therefore, the structure was assumed to
respond in the fixed mode shape {u} during an earthquake, and the equation of motion was
expressed as
[m]{u}&&
xR + {v} f R = [m]{1}&&
y
T
Pre-multiplying {u}
(4)
to Eq. 4,
{u}T [m]{u}&&
xR + {u}T {v} f R = {u}T [m]{1}&&
y
(5)
mx&&R + f = m( &&
y)
(6)
Or,
m = {u}T [m]{u} : effective mass, f = {u}T {v} f R : effective restoring force, and
= {u}T [m]{1}/ m : effective participation factor. The seven-story structure was forced to reduce to
in which
q&&i = ( qi +1 2qi + qi 1 ) / t 2
(7)
qi +1 = 2qi qi 1 + t 2 q&&i
(8)
In other words, from displacements and acceleration at old time steps i-1 and i, the displacement at
new time step i+1 can be evaluated, hence the roof-level displacement xR (= qi +1 ).
6
Although displacement amplitudes at other levels can also be determined by Eq. 3, only the
roof-level displacement was controlled in the test. Eight actuators, maintaining the fixed load
distribution {v} , applied load to the structure until the roof-level displacement reached the specified
displacement.
When the roof-level displacement attained the calculated amplitude xR ( = qi +1 ), the resistance
f R at the roof level was measured. The acceleration amplitude &x&R (= q&&i +1 ) was evaluated by Eq.
yi +1 . With a new acceleration value at time step i+1, Eq.
6 with given ground acceleration amplitude &&
8 was used to calculate the displacement at further time step i+2.
Repeating the procedure outlined above, the test structure was subjected to an imaginary
earthquake motion.
Equations 6 and 8 may be combined to yield a single-step procedure,
qi +1 = 2qi qi 1 (t 2 / m) f i ( t 2 ) &&
yi
(9)
or in an incremental form,
qi +1 = qi (t 2 / m) fi ( t 2 ) &&
yi
in which, qi = qi qi 1 . Equation 10 was used in the analysis.
(10)
Nominal
Diameter
mm
9.5
15.9
19.1
22.2
25.4
Nominal
Perimeter
mm
30.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Nominal
Area
mm2
71
199
287
387
507
Yield
Strength
Kgf/cm2
3870
3850
3650
3530
3780
Strain
Hardening
Strain
0.018
0.019
0.017
0.012
0.022
Tensile
Strength
Kgf/cm2
5670
5720
5730
5750
5660
Test
Age
(days)
67
87
98
111
119
132
145
Compressive
Strength
(kgf/cm2)
189
144
295
290
274
292
289
Strain at
Compressive
Strength
0.0019
0.0019
0.0019
0.0023
0.0023
0.0024
0.0022
Tensile
Strength
(kgf/cm2)
13.2
13.3
23.6
23.3
22.8
24.6
24.2
Fracture
Strain
0.17
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.20
11
12
13
The stiffness properties of a rotational spring are evaluated for an imaginary anti-symmetric
loading conditions with the inflection point at the center of the flexible portion of a member. The
rotation at a flexible end less the elastic rotation is assigned to the rotational spring. The shear
deformation within a member and the member end rotation due to bar slip within the beam-to-column
connection should be considered in the evaluation of the deformation.
The shear deformation of a beam-to-column connection panel is not considered in the analysis.
Wall Model: A shear wall is normally idealized as (a) an equivalent column taking flexural and shear
deformation into account, (b) a braced frame, in which the shear deformation is represented by the
deformation of diagonal elements, whereas the flexural deformation by the deformation of vertical
elements, and (c) short line segments along the height with each short segment with hysteretic
characteristics (9, 10). These models have advantages and disadvantages. In most cases, the
horizontal boundary beams (or slabs) are assumed to be rigid.
The Japanese support tests on three-story walls with connecting beams (11) indicated a large
elongation of a tension-side column due to cracking, and a small compression of the
compression-side column, with the neutral axis of wall section close to the compression-side column.
In other words, the bending deformation of a wall was caused primarily by the extension of the
tension-side boundary column. The resistance of a wall came from the resistances of the boundary
columns and that of the central wall section.
The wall member of a story was, therefore, idealized as three vertical line elements with infinitely
rigid beams at the top and bottom floor levels (Fig. 13). Two outside truss elements represented the
axial stiffness of boundary columns. The axial stiffness varied with the sign and level of axial stress,
and degraded with tensile stress history. The central vertical element was a one-component model in
which vertical, horizontal and rotational springs were concentrated at the base. A finite rigid zone
could be placed between the spring assembly and the lower rigid chord.
14
The model was intended to simulate the wall deformation under uniform bending, the resistance of
wall section being lumped at the locations of the outer truss elements and the central vertical spring.
The effect of strain gradient across the wall section was represented by the rotational spring in the
central element, and the shear deformation expressed by the deformation of the horizontal spring.
The stiffness matrix of a wall element was formulated as the sum of the stiffness of the three
vertical elements evaluated at the top and bottom of the two boundary columns.
Transverse Beam Model: The tensile boundary column of a wall tends to elongate extensively under
bending deformation, yielding a significant vertical displacement at a beam-to-wall-joint node,
whereas the vertical displacement of a beam-to-column-joint node of an open frame is relatively small.
Consequently, the transverse beam connecting the boundary column of a shear wall and an adjacent
parallel open frame is subjected to vertical differential displacement at the two ends, and resists the
upward movement of a wall boundary column.
Vertical spring elements, therefore, were introduced to reflect the effect of such transverse beams
to restrain the elongation of a tensile boundary column (Fig. 14). A spring was placed between the
joints of the wall and an open frame connected by a transverse beam.
15
16
when
when
a < 0.5l
a 0.5l
(11.a)
(11.b)
where a : distance from the side of a beam to the side of the adjacent parallel T-beam (Fig. 15), and
l : span length of the beam.
Equation (11.b) governed in all beams, and the total effective width B of beams parallel to the
loading direction was 150 cm in spans 1-2 and 3-4, and 130 cm in span 2-3 (Fig. 2).
The moment of inertia of a T-shaped beam section was computed about the geometrical centroid
ignoring the contribution of reinforcing steel. The elastic modulus of concrete was assumed to be 2.37
x 105 kgf/cm2, ignoring the fact that the field cured cylinders from the sixth and seventh story concrete
showed lower strength. The elastic stiffness properties were given to the perfectly elastic massless
line element of a one-component model.
Cracking moment M c of a beam at the face of the supporting column was computed on the
basis of the flexural theory and an assumed concrete tensile strength of 20 kgf/cm2 (Table 3); i.e.,
M c = c t Ze
where
(12)
t : tensile strength of concrete (=20 kgf/cm2), and Z e : section modulus without reinforcing
steel.
The value of cracking moment was different for the positive and negative bending because the
geometrical center does not locate at the mid-height of the section. The average value of positive and
negative cracking moments was used in the analysis.
Yield moment and curvature of a T-shaped beam section were calculated based on the flexural
theory. A linear strain variation across the section was assumed and the stress-strain relationships for
the longitudinal steel and concrete were considered as input factors.
Bi-linear model was used for the stress-strain relationship of steel as shown in Fig.16.a. Yield
stress (=3,650 kgf/cm2), and elastic modulus (=1.710 x 106 kgf/cm2), for D19 deformed bars were
determined according to the results of the material tests. The stiffness after yielding was assumed to
be zero.
The stress-strain relation model by Aoyama (17) was used for concrete as shown in Fig. 16.b,
17
which defined the primary curve according to the following equation; i.e.,
B
where
B
=
where =
Ec B
(13)
strain at compressive strength (=0.0021), and Ec : initial tangent modulus (=2.37 x 105 kgf/cm2).
The slab can contribute to the resistance of a beam. The region, in which slab reinforcement
parallel to the loading direction yielded under beam negative moment, progressively spread with
increasing beam rotation. The strains measured in the slab reinforcing bars during the full-scale test
indicated that the effective slab width B (Fig. 15) was 350 cm in Frames A and C and 510 cm in Frame
B at maximum structural deformation (18). Therefore, the slab effective width B of 430 cm was used
in computation. Consequently, the yield moments for the positive and negative bending were
significantly different.
The inelastic beam deformation was assumed to concentrate at the locations of two nonlinear
rotational springs. The beam-end rotations at cracking and yielding were computed on the basis of
corresponding curvature distribution of the beam with an inflection point assumed to locate at the
mid-span of the flexible portion of the beam. The shear deformation was assumed to be proportional
to the flexural deformation. The calculated beam-end rotation less the elastic deformation was
assigned to the rotational spring at the end.
The skeleton moment-rotation curve was represented by a trilinear relation in each direction of
loading. The stiffness after yielding was arbitrarily assumed to be 3 % of the initial elastic stiffness.
The calculated stiffness properties of a beam model are listed in Table 4. The elastic deformation is
included in the calculated rotation.
(2) Column Stiffness: The dimensions of a column section and the amount of longitudinal
reinforcement were identical in all the column. The elastic stiffness properties (moment of inertia,
cross sectional area, and area effective for shear deformation) were calculated for gross concrete
section, ignoring the contribution of the steel reinforcement.
The existing axial force of a column due to the gravity loading was not the same for a column at
different story levels, and for columns of a story at different locations. The weight of slab, beams, and
girders within the tributary area of a column (Fig. 17) was used to calculate the axial load. The
calculated values (Table 3) were generally in reasonable agreement with the values obtained from
strain gauge measurement on column longitudinal bars. Columns C1 and C3 carried the weight of
actuators and loading beams. For columns C1 and C1 ' , or C3 and C3 ' , the average axial load of
the two columns was used in the analysis. The variation of axial load due to the overturning effect of
earthquake forces was not considered in evaluating flexural resisting capacity.
Simple approximate expressions (12) were used to evaluate cracking moment M c and yield
moment M y ; i.e.,
M c = c t Ze + N D / 6
M y = 0.8 at y D + 0.5 N D(1 N / b D Fc )
(14)
(15)
where N: axial force in column section (Table 5.2), b: width of column section (=50 cm), D: overall
depth of column section (=50 cm), and Fc : compressive strength of concrete (=290 kgf/cm2).
The area at of tensile reinforcement was 3-D22 (=11.61 cm2). The yield strength of D22
18
reinforcing bars was taken from the coupon test to be 3,530 kgf/cm2. The tensile strength of concrete
was assumed to be 20 kgf/cm2.
The rotations of a column were evaluated by a simple empirical formula by Sugano (19). The
formula was prepared for reinforced concrete beams and columns subjected to anti-symmetric
bending. The secant stiffness ( M y / y ) at the yield point was proposed:
M
N
d 6 EI
)( ) 2 (
)
+ 0.33
QD
bDFc D
l
(16)
Ks =
GAw
h
(17)
in which, G: elastic shear modulus (=0.98 x 105 kgf/cm2), Aw : area of shear wall section (Fig. 18),
:shape factor for shear deformation (= 3(1 + u )[1 u 2 (1 v)] / 4[1 u 3 (1 v)] , h: inter-story height,
and u, v : geometrical parameters defined in Fig. 18.
Shear cracking was assumed to occur at a shear force
s
Qc (in kgf),
Qc = 1.4 Fc Aw
(18)
2
Hirosawa's empirical equation (13) was used to evaluate the ultimate shear resisting capacity
s Qu (kgf);
=
+
+
Q
p
2.7
0.1
0 be j
s u
wh wh
M / QL + 0.12
(19)
D
) , at : area of longitudinal
2
wh : yield strength
of horizontal reinforcement in the wall (kgf/cm ), pwh : effective horizontal wall reinforcement ratio =
awh / be x , x : spacing of horizontal wall reinforcement (= 20 cm), 0 : average axial stress over
7
D
entire wall cross sectional area (Table 5.2.a), be : average width of wall section, j = ( L ) , L,D:
8
2
geometrical parameters defined in Fig. 18.
Ratio
s of the secant stiffness at shear yield point to the elastic stiffness was determined
empirically by
(20)
The stiffness after shear yielding was taken to be 0.1 % of the initial elastic shear rigidity.
Calculated stiffness properties are listed in Table 8.a.
Axial stiffness properties of the central vertical element (Table 8.b) were determined in the same
way as the truss element. Area of a shear wall bounded by the inner faces of two boundary columns
was used for the cross sectional area of the central vertical element.
Rotational stiffness properties of the central vertical element (Table 8.c) were defined for wall area
bounded by the inner faces of two boundary columns. Wall rotation was computed as the product of
the curvature at base and the inter-story height. In other words, for the purpose of computing wall
rotation, moment was assumed to distribute uniformly along the story height with an amplitude equal
to the moment at wall critical section. Cracking was to occur when the extreme tensile fiber strain
became zero under the gravity load and overturning moment;
Mc =
N ( uL )
(21)
Yielding moment M y was taken to be the full plastic moment; moment about the centroid of wall
section caused by the yielding of all vertical wall reinforcement. The gravity load was ignored in
computing the full plastic moment. The stiffness after yielding was taken to be 0.1 % of the initial
elastic stiffness.
(4) Transverse Beam Stiffness: The effect of transverse beams to restrain the upward movement of
a tensile wall boundary column was represented by a vertical spring. The initial elastic stiffness K t
was calculated for a fixed-fixed beam as
20
Kt =
12 EI
l3
(22)
where EI : flexural rigidity of transverse beam, and l : span length of transverse beam.
Cracking and yielding forces were determined as shear force acting in the transverse beam when
both ends cracked and yielded simultaneously in flexure. Cracking moment, yielding moment and
curvature of T-shaped transverse beam section were evaluated based on the flexural theory in the
same way used for beam stiffness evaluation. These values calculated for positive and negative
bending moments were averaged. The effective width B (Fig. 15) of 190 cm was determined referring
to the results of the full-scale test (18). The stiffness after yielding was reduced to 3 % of the initial
stiffness.
The numerical values of the stiffness properties of the vertical spring are listed in Table 9.
Hysteresis Models: A hysteresis model must be able to provide the stiffness and resistance relation
under any displacement history. Four different hysteresis models were used in the analysis; i.e., (a)
Takeda hysteresis model (14), (b) Takeda-slip hysteresis model (16), (c) Axial-stiffness hysteresis
model, and (d) Origin-oriented hysteresis model. The characteristics of each model are briefly
described in this section.
(1) Takeda Hysteresis Model: Based on the experimental observation on the behavior of a number
of medium-size reinforced concrete members tested under lateral load reversals with light to medium
amount of axial load, a comprehensive hysteresis model was developed by Takeda, Sozen and
Nielsen (l4). The model included (a) stiffness changes at flexural cracking and yielding, utilizing a
trilinear skeleton force-deformation relationship, (b) hysteresis rules for inner hysteresis loops inside
the outer loop; i.e., the response point during loading moves toward a peak of the immediately outer
hysteresis loop, and (c) unloading stiffness degradation with a maximum deformation amplitude. The
unloading stiffness K r is given by
Kr =
Fc + Fy
Dc + Dy
Dm a
|
Dy
(23)
Eto and Takeda (16) introduced pinching characteristics into a hysteresis model in simulating
member-end rotation behavior due to bar slip within a beam-column connection. The Takeda and
Eto's model was modified in this paper for use in a rotational spring of a beam one-component model.
The Takeda hysteresis model was modified as follows :
(a) The pinching occurs only in one direction where the yield resistance is higher than that in the
other direction, and the pinching occurs only after the initial yielding in the direction concerned.
(b) The stiffness K s during slipping is a function of the maximum response point ( Dm , Em ) and
the point of load reversal ( D0 , F0 ) in the force-deformation plane (Fig. 21.d)
Fm Dm
Ks =
Dm D0 Dm D0
(24)
K p = (
where
Fm
)
Dm
(25)
D
K r = K c max
Dyt
(26)
where, Dyt : tensile yielding point deformation, Dmax : maximum deformation amplitude greater than
Dyt , : unloading stiffness degradation parameter (=0.9). When the response point reaches the
previous maximum tensile point M, then the response point moves on the second slope of the
skeleton curve, renewing the maximum response point M.
When the response point approaches the compressive characteristic point Y' and moves on the
elastic slope in compression, the response moves toward a point Y" from a point P of deformation
22
Dp :
D p = Dyc + ( Dx Dyc )
(27)
where, : parameter for stiffness hardening point (=0.2), Dx : deformation at unloading stiffness
changing point. This rule is introduced only to reduce an unbalanced force by a sudden stiffness
change at compressive characteristic point Y. The compressive characteristic point Y will be
maintained under any loading history.
This axial-stiffness hysteresis model was used for the axial deformation of an independent column
as well as a boundary column of a wall. The initial response point located in the compression zone
because a column carried gravity loads.
(4) Origin-Oriented Hysteresis Model: A hysteresis model which dissipates small hysteretic energy
was used for the rotational and horizontal springs at the base of the central vertical element of a wall
model.
The response point moves along a line connecting the origin and the previous maximum response
point in the direction of reloading (Fig. 23). Once the response point reaches the previous maximum
point, the response point follows the skeleton force-deformation relation renewing the maximum
response point. In this model, no residual deformation occurs, and the stiffness changes when the
sign of resistance changes. No hysteretic energy is dissipated when the response point oscillates
within a region defined by the positive and negative maximum response points. The skeleton curve of
this model can be of any shape.
23
Bottom in Tension
4.2
0.50
9.8
0.52
(6.6)*
(0.79)*
N,
tf
y
2.67
3.12
3.34
3.93
4.31
4.66
5.00
N
tf
10.8
27.2
43.6
60.6
76.5
92.9
110.1
Mc,
tf-m
5.1
6.4
7.8
9.2
10.5
11.9
13.3
C3
My
tf-m
19.0
22.9
26.6
30.0
33.0
36.3
39.3
Table 7: Axial Stiffness Properties for Shear Wall (Outside Truss Element)
Story
First Story
Second through
Seventh stories
Elastic Stiffness
Compression (tonf/m)
Tension (tonf/m)
158,000
142,000
198,000
178,000
24
Tension Yield
Load (tonf)
109.3
109.3
y
2.57
3.09
3.59
4.05
4.46
4.90
5.31
Story
First story
Second
story
and above
Story
First story
Second story
and above
Tensile Yield
Load
(tonf)
121.4
121.4
Story
Yield Story
Displacement
(mm)
4.17
3.33
Yielding
Rotation
X10-5 l rad
2.75
2.84
2.93
3.01
3.10
3.19
3.23
Cracking Force
(tonf)
2.0
25
Yield Force
(tonf)
5.6
Yield Displacement
(cm)
1.16
Fig. 17: Tributary Area for Gravity Axial Load Computation of Columns and Wall
26
27
29
qi +1 = qi (t 2 / m) f i ( t 2 ) &&
yi
(28)
where qi = qi qi 1 : incremental displacement at roof level from time step i-1 to i, t : time
increment, m : effective mass,( = {u} [m]{u} ), f : effective resistance at time step i, ( = {u} {v} f R ),
T
: effective participation factor,( = {u}T [m]{1}/ m ), &y&i : ground acceleration at time step i, {u} :
assumed lateral deflection mode shape, {v} : assumed lateral resistance distribution, [ m] : mass
matrix, and {1} : vector consisting of unit element.
Step 2: Unbalance force correction. This step is necessary only when the stiffness changed
between time steps i-1 and i.
0
(a) Calculate displacement vector {x } due to unit load {v}
{x 0 } = [ K ]i1{v}
(29)
(b) Calculate displacement vector {x '} due to unbalanced force {F '} , at time step i,
(30)
f R i +1 = ( qi +1 x 'R i +1 ) / xR0
(31)
30
are the values of vectors {x '} and {x } evaluated at the roof level.
Step 4: Calculate displacement increment {x}i due to incremental load and unbalanced forces
{F '}i ,
{x}i = {x 0 }f R i +1 + {x '}i +1
(32)
Step 5: Calculate incremental member forces from incremental joint displacement and
tangent member stiffness. Check if member stiffness changed during time step i and i+1.
Steps 1 through 5 were repeated for each time step. Computed response was temporarily stored
on computer files, and plots of response waveforms and force-deformation curves were made if
necessary.
31
Parametric studies by varying beam yield resistance and post-yielding stiffness indicated that the
combination of the values described in Chapter 5 was most suited to the test structure; i.e., the beam
yield resistance to be computed with the contribution of slab reinforcement within an effective width of
430 cm and post-yielding stiffness to be 3 % of the initial elastic stiffness.
SDF Hysteresis Relation (Test PSD-3): Roof-level displacement and base shear were the
corresponding force and displacement in the "equivalent" single-degree-of-freedom pseudo-dynamic
test, and their relation may be called "SDF hysteresis" as shown in Fig. 25.
As can be expected from a good correlation of observed and computed response waveforms, the
observed and computed hysteresis relations as an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system are
in fair agreement, especially at the peaks of hysteresis loops. General shapes of the two curves are
slightly different; the stiffness of the test structure changed gradually during unloading, whereas the
stiffness of the analytical model changed when the sign of resistance changed. The latter stiffness
change was associated with that of member hysteresis models such as Takeda, Takeda-slip, and
Origin-oriented hysteresis models. The analytical model showed some pinching behavior, which was
also appreciable in the observed hysteresis relation. The pinching behavior of an analytical model
was caused by Takeda-slip hysteresis model used with beam one-component models and
axial-stiffness hysteresis model used with vertical line elements in the shear wall.
Local Deformations (Test PSD-3): During the pseudo-dynamic tests, local deformations of
members were measured at various locations of the test structure; (a) flexural rotation at beam ends,
(b) flexural rotation at column base, (c) elongation of boundary columns of the wall, and (d) shear
deformation of the wall panel. Computed local deformations of typical members were compared with
the observed deformations so as to examine the reliability of the analysis method.
(1) Beam End Rotation: Rotations at beam ends were determined from the axial elongation and
compression measurements by two displacement gauges, one placed above the slab face and the
other placed below the beam, parallel to the beam member axis (Fig. 26.c). The gauge length was
one half the effective beam depth from the column face.
The observed base shear-beam end rotation relation of a sixth floor beam at the wall connection is
shown in Fig. 26.a. The calculated relation is shown in Fig. 26.b. The calculated and the observed
relations do not necessarily agree because the beam end rotation was measured for a given gauge
length, whereas the rotation was calculated for an entire beam under imaginary anti-symmetric
loading condition. In other words, the calculated deformation corresponds to the deformation over
one-half span length of the beam. Therefore, the measured deformations were generally smaller, and
approximately 60 to 70% of the calculated amplitudes. General shapes of the base shear-beam end
rotation relation curves of the two were similar.
The beam was subjected to larger deformation in the negative loading direction when the
connecting tension-side boundary column moved upward. The upward displacement of a boundary
column joint (node) was significantly larger than the downward displacement because the bending
deformation of a wall was mainly attributable to the elongation of a tension-side boundary column.
Both observed and calculated beam-end response show this behavior.
Negative maximum deformations were larger than the positive deformation, although positive and
negative amplitudes of overall structural displacement were comparable. Negative deformation
amplitudes at the two ends of the beam were comparable, whereas the positive deformation at the
wall end was approximately 1.3 times larger than that of the behavior observed at the further end (left
end); the behavior was observed both in the measured and calculated beam-end rotations. At the
exterior column-beam joint, beam negative moment capacity was large due to the participation of slab
reinforcement. Hence, the exterior column was subjected to higher bending moment under the
positive loading (load applied from right to left), and experienced a larger rotation at column ends.
Therefore, nodal rotation at the exterior beam-column joint under the positive loading was smaller,
resulting in a smaller beam-end rotation at the exterior column end.
33
Figure 27 shows the beam-end rotations at a sixth floor beam in Frame A. The observed
beam-end rotation amplitudes were smaller than the calculated amplitudes.
(2) Column Axial Deformation: A large vertical displacement was observed at the top (roof level) of
the tension-side boundary column of the wall during the test. Large axial elongations were measured
in the tensile region of the wall, especially at lower stories. Compressive axial deformations in the
corresponding region were small under opposite direction loading. Larger deformation was observed
in a transverse beam connected at the tensile edge (boundary column) of the wall. The boundary
columns were measured to elongate as much as 44 mm in the first story as shown in Fig. 28.a,
whereas the maximum compressive deformation reached only 5 mm.
Computed axial deformations of the boundary column, as expressed as the deformation of outer
truss elements, are shown in Fig. 28.b. General deformation amplitudes and hysteresis shapes of the
analytical model agree reasonably well with those of the test structure. The computed axial
deformation was larger.
Response at Maximum Displacement (Test PSD-3): It is important from design point of view to
estimate possible force amplitudes and deformation ductility factors at various critical sections of the
test structure at maximum deformation. However, member forces could not be measured in the test.
The frame analysis method may be applied to estimate these quantities. The maximum deformation
of the test structure was observed as well as calculated to occur at 4.48 see of the earthquake time.
(1) Member Forces: Member forces in wall-frame B calculated at maximum structural deformation by
the analytical model are shown in Fig. 29. The wall carried smaller shear forces in the first story than
in the second story.
Vertical forces transferred by transverse beams to the wall boundary columns are also shown in
the figure. Yield force level was reached by the transverse beam connected to the boundary column
in tension.
(2) Member Ductility: Ductility factors are defined in the analysis as a ratio of maximum deformation
amplitude to the calculated yield amplitude. Figure 30 shows the distribution of ductility factors at the
maximum structural deformation for frames A and C and frame B.
In open frames A and C (Fig. 30.a), almost all beam ends yielded at the maximum displacement
except those at the roof level. Under this deformed configuration, the top chord was in tension at the
left end of a beam, and the bottom chord was in tension at the right end. Ductility factors, ratios of
beam end rotations to the yield rotation, ranged from 0.8 to 1.5 at the left end of the beams, and from
2.3 to 4.7 at the right end. The rotation amplitudes at the left and right ends of the beams are
comparable. The difference in ductility factors at the two ends of a beam was caused by the
difference in the yield rotations at the two ends (see Table 4); the yield: rotation amplitude under
negative moment (top chord in tension) is approximately twice as much as that under positive
moment (bottom chord in tension).
Ductility factors at the same end (left or right) of the beams varied with the level of the beam; the
ductility factor decreased with the beam level. A beam end rotation appeared to be inversely related
to the column end rotation of the joint. Ductility factors of beam ends were smaller at the upper floor
levels where the columns yielded, and they were larger at the right exterior joints where the column
rotations were smaller.
In wall-frame B (Fig. 30.b), all beams yielded. Under the deformed configuration, the top chord
was in tension at the left end of a beam, and the bottom chord in tension at right end. The distribution
of beam end ductility factors was relatively uniform along the height; 1.4 to 1.7 at left exterior beam
ends, 4.1 to 4.7 at beam ends immediately left of the wall, 3.2 to 3.4 at beam ends immediately right
of the wall, and 6.5 to 7.9 at right exterior beam ends. The beam end rotation was generally larger in
the right exterior span than that at the corresponding end in the left exterior beams, which was
34
caused by the large vertical displacement along the tensile boundary column.
(3) Deflected Shape: Observed and calculated deflected shapes at maximum structural deformation
are compared in Fig. 31. A good agreement can be noted at every floor level. The deflection mode
shape used for the equivalent single-degree-of-freedom pseudo-dynamic earthquake test slightly
deviated at lower floor levels.
Analysis of Test PSD-2: The maximum roof-level displacement during the second test run (PSD-2)
reached 1/660 of the total structural height, or 33 mm. An artificial earthquake motion, modified from
the NS component of the Tohoku University record measured during the 1978 Miyagi-Oki Earthquake,
was used with the maximum acceleration amplitude of 105 Gal (cm/sec2). The calculated response
waveforms and equivalent SDF hysteresis relation are examined below.
(1) Response Waveforms: Observed and calculated roof-level displacement and base shear
waveforms are compared in Fig. 32. The analysis indicated that the test structure responded
elastically up to 1.5 sec, and then started to suffer damages. The calculated response waveforms
(solid lines) are in good agreement with the observed (broken lines) in the first 2.5 sec, and then
significantly deviates from the observed.
The maximum roof-level displacement of 32.9 mm was observed at 2.03 sec, while the maximum
amplitude of 36.5 mm was calculated at 2.06 sec. The maximum base shear of 224 tonf was attained
at 2.01 sec in the test. The maximum displacement and base shear did not occur at the same time in
the test. The maximum base shear of 219 tonf, slightly smaller than the observed, was calculated at
the same time as the calculated maximum displacement.
The calculated residual displacement at the termination of the base motion was so small that the
free vibration response was not excited in the analysis.
(2) Equivalent SDF Hysteresis Relation: Observed and calculated roof-level displacement vs. base
shear relation is compared in Fig. 33. Note that the two curves are similar. However, a careful
inspection reveals that calculated stiffness and resistance (solid lines) were generally lower than the
observed (broken lines). The calculated stiffness in a small amplitude oscillation following a large
amplitude excursion was lower, which may be a major cause to create the discrepancy in the two
waveforms (Fig. 32) after 2.5 sec.
Analysis of Test PSD-4: After test PSD-3, the roof-level displacement during test PSD-4 reached as
large as 1/64 of the total story height, or 342 mm. The EW component of the Hachinohe Harbor
record measured during the 1968 Tokachi-Oki Earthquake was used in the test with the maximum
acceleration of 350 Gal. The analysis was carried out continuously using the PSD-2, PSD-3 , and
PSD-4 input motions. Calculated and observed response waveforms and equivalent SDF hysteresis
relations are compared below.
(1) Response Waveforms: Observed and calculated roof-level displacement and base shear
waveforms are compared in Fig. 34. Note the good agreement of the two waveforms over the entire
duration of the test.
Maximum roof-level displacement reached 342 mm at 4.36 sec during the test, while the maximum
amplitude of 391 mm was calculated at 4.33 sec. Observed maximum base shear of 439 tonf was
attained at 2.52 sec, much before the maximum displacement was attained. The base shear at the
maximum displacement amplitude was observed to be 433 tonf, almost of the same amplitude as the
observed maximum base shear. The maximum base shear of 463 tonf was calculated at 4.33 sec,
slightly larger than the observed. The calculated and observed waveforms oscillated in the same
phase with a common dominant period of 1 .36 sec.
(2) Equivalent SDF Hysteresis Relations: Observed and calculated roof-level displacement vs.
base shear relations are compared in Fig. 35. The two hysteresis curves show a pinching behavior at
35
low stress levels. As expected from the good agreement in the response waveforms, the two
hysteresis curves agreed well. The observed base shear in the positive direction was slightly lower
than that in the negative direction. Such degradation in resistance was not reproduced by the
analytical model.
36
Fig. 25: Observed and Calculated SDF Hysteresis Relation of Test PSD-3
37
Fig. 26: Observed and Calculated Beam-end Rotation at Wall Connection (Test PSDD-3)
38
Fig. 27: Observed and Calculated Beam End Rotation in Frame A (Test PSD-3)
39
Fig. 28: Observed and Calculated Axial Deformation of Wall Boundary Columns (Test PSD-3)
40
Fig. 29: Calculated Member Forces at Maximum Structural Deformation in Test PSD-3
(b) Frame B
Fig. 30: Calculated Ductility Factors at Maximum Structural Deformation in Test PSD-3
41
Fig. 35: Observed and Calculated SDF Hysteresis Relations in Test PSD-4
44
8) Takizawa, H., Strong Motion Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Buildings (in Japanese),
Concrete Journal, Japan National Council on Concrete, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1973, pp. 10 - 21.
9) Omote, Y. and T. Takeda, Nonlinear Earthquake Response Study on the Reinforced Concrete
Chimney - Part 1 Model Tests and Analysis (in Japanese), Transactions, Architectural Institute of
Japan, No. 215, 1974, pp. 21-32.
10) Takayanagi, T. and W. C. Schnobrich, Computed Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Coupled
Shear Walls, Structural Research Series No. 434, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1976.
11) Hiraishi, H., M. Yoshimura, H. Isoishi and S. Nakata, Planer Tests on Reinforced Concrete Shear
Wall Assemblies - U.S.-Japan Cooperative Research Program -, Report submitted at Joint
Technical Coordinating Committee, U.S.-Japan Cooperative Research Program, Building
Research Institute of Japan, 1981.
12) Architectural Institute of Japan: AIJ Standard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced Concrete
Structures (Revised in 1982), 1950.
13) Hirosawa, M., Past Experimental Results on Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Analysis on
them (in Japanese), Kenchiku Kenkyu Shiryo No. 6, Building Research Institute, Ministry of
Construction, 1975.
14) Takeda, T., M. A. Sozen and N. N. Nielsen, Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated
Earthquakes, ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 96, No. ST12, 1970, pp. 2557 - 2573.
15) Nakata, S., S. Otani; T. Kabeyasawa, Y. Kai and S. Kimura, Tests of Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Assemblages, - U.S.-Japan Cooperative Research Program -, Report submitted
to Joint Technical Coordinating Committee, U.S.-Japan Cooperative Research Program, Building
Research Institute and University of Tokyo, 1980.
16) Eto. H. and T. Takeda, Elasto Plastic Earthquake Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Frame Structure (in Japanese), Proceedings, Architectural Institute of Japan Annual Meeting,
1977, pp. 1877 - l878.
17) Fujii, S, H. Aoyama and H. Umemura, Moment-Curvature Relations of Reinforced Concrete
Sections Obtained from Material Characteristics (in Japanese), Proceedings, Architectural
Institute of Japan Annual Meeting, 1973, pp. 1261 - 1262.
18) Kaminosono. T., S. Okamoto, Y. Kitagawa, S. Nakata, M. Yoshimura, S. Kurose and H. Tsubosaki,
The Full-Scale Seismic Experiment of a Seven-story Reinforced Concrete Building, - Part 1, 2 (in Japanese Proceedings, Sixth Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, 1982, pp. 865-880.
19) Sugano, S., Experimental Study on Restoring Force Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete
Members (in Japanese), Doctor of Engineering Thesis, Department of Architecture, University of
Tokyo, 1970.
46