You are on page 1of 16

Systemic Analysis

Computational model for buildings with energy dissipators
subjected to seismic action
A.H. Barbat1, P. Mata1, S. Oller1, R. Boroschek2 and J.C. Vielma1
1Technical University of Catalonia, UPC
Edificio C1, Campus Nord, Gran Capit´a s/n. 08034 Barcelona, Spain.
2 University of Chile; Department of Civil Engineering
837-0449 Santiago, Chile.

The poor performance of many framed RC structures in recent strong earthquakes
has alerted about the need of improving their seismic behavior especially when
they are designed according to obsolete seismic codes. Sometimes, RC buildings
show a low level of structural damping, important second order effects and low
ductility of the connecting joints, among other defects.
These characteristics allow proposing the use of energy dissipating devices for improving
their seismic behavior, controlling their lateral displacements, providing additional
damping and ductility. In this work, the nonlinear dynamic response of RC buildings with
energy dissipating devices is studied using advanced computational techniques. A fully
geometric and constitutive nonlinear model for the description of the dynamic

behavior of framed structures is used. The model proposed for the structures and
the dissipating devices is based on the geometrically exact formulation for beams
which considers finite deformation and finite strains. The equations of motion of
the system are expressed in terms of sectional forces and generalized strains and
the dynamic problem is solved using the displacement based method formulated in
the finite element framework. An appropriated version of Newmark’s integration
scheme is used in updating the kinematics variables in a classical Newton type
iterative scheme. Each material point of the cross section is assumed to be
composed of several simple materials with their own constitutive laws developed in
terms of the material description of the First Piola Kirchhoff stress vector.
Appropriated constitutive laws for concrete and for steel reinforcements are
provided. The simple mixing theory is used to treat the resulting composite. A
specific finite element based on the beam theory is proposed for modeling the
energy dissipating devices. Several constitutive descriptions in terms of force and
displacements are provided for the dissipators. Special attention is paid to the
development of local and global damage indices capable of describing the residual
strength of the buildings. Finally, several numerical tests are carried out to
validate the ability of the model to reproduce the nonlinear seismic response of RC
buildings with energy dissipating devices.
KEYWORDS: Geometric nonlinearity, nonlinear analysis, beam model, composites,
reinforced concrete structures, damage index, mixing theory.

ISSN 1582-3024

Article No.1, Intersections/Intersecţii, Vol.5, 2008, No.4, “Systemic Analysis”


R. the constitutive relationship at cross sectional level is deduced by integration. for example. Barbat. In order to perform a precise dynamic nonlinear analysis of passively controlled buildings sophisticated numerical tools became are necessary [14] .C. P. A critical review of reduction factors and design force levels can be consulted in [10].al. due to cyclic inelastic incursions during earthquakes. Boroschek and J.H. several structural members can suffer a great amount of damage. Several works about seismic control with passive EDDs are available.5. [11. Recently. Aiken [1] presents the contribution of the extra energy dissipation due to EDDs as an equivalent damping added to the linear bare structure. Vielma 1. Vol. INTRODUCTION Conventional seismic design practice permits designing reinforced concrete (RC) structures for forces lower than those expected from the elastic response on the premise that the structural design assures significant structural ductility [6]. one dimensional formulations for structural elements appear as a solution combining both numerical precision and reasonable computational costs [11]. while the energy dissipation relies on the control system. new techniques based on adding devices to the buildings with the main objective of dissipating the energy exerted by the earthquake and alleviating the ductility demand on primary structural elements have improved the seismic behavior of the structures [25]. In the last decades. Frequently.1. “Systemic Analysis” 4 . Oller. most of the geometrically nonlinear models are limited to the elastic case [7.intersections. Considering that most of the elements in RC buildings are columns and beams. in reference [8] an approximated method is used to carry out a comparative study considering metallic and viscous devices. 21. S. In the case of passive energy dissipating devices (EDD) an important part of the energy input is dissipated without the need of an external energy supply. the dissipative zones are located near the beam-column joints and. However. Formulations considering both. The purpose is to control the seismic response of the buildings by means of a set of dissipating A. 21] and the inelasticity has been restricted mainly to plasticity [24]. constitutive and geometric nonlinearity are rather scarce. Intersections/Intersecţii. and in this case. An additional refinement is obtained considering an arbitrary distribution of materials on the beam cross section [18]. 23] to an arbitrary distribution of composite materials on the cross sections for the static and dynamic cases. 2008. A method for the preliminary design of passively controlled buildings is presented in reference [3]. From the numerical point of view. No. EDDs usually have been described in a global sense by means of force–displacement or moment–curvature relationships [25] ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. The design methods proposed for RC structures are mainly based on supposing that the behavior of the bare structure remains elastic.Systemic Analysis http://www. 12] have extended the geometrically exact formulation for beams due to Reissner-Simo [19. experimental and theoretical evidence show that inelastic behavior can also occur in the structural elements during severe earthquakes [20]. Mata.4. Mata et. in reference [4] the response of structures equipped with viscoelastic and viscous devices is compared.

A fiber–like approach is used for representing arbitrary distributions of composite materials on the plane beam cross sections.4. with S ∈ [0.L] its arch–length coordinate. Each point on this curve has rigidly attached an orthogonal local frame tˆ0 i (S ) = Λ 0 Eˆ i ∈ . The position vector of a material point on the R curved reference beam is xˆ0 = ϕˆ0 + ∑β Λ ξ β Eˆ β . Thermodynamically consistent constitutive laws are provided for steel. The curved { } { } reference beam is defined by means of the spatially fixed curve given by ϕˆ0 = ∑iϕ 0 i ( S )eˆi ∈ R 3 . No. ϕˆ 0. The straight reference beam is defined by the curve ϕˆ 00 = S Eˆ1 . 2.5. Finally. where Λ 0 ∈ SO (3) is the orientation tensor2.1.intersections.Systemic Analysis http://www. 0 0 The motion deforms points on the curved reference beam from ϕˆ 0 (S ) to ϕˆ (S. the numerical simulation of the seismic behaviour of a precast RC structure with EDDs is presented.1. respectively. EDDs are considered as beam elements without rotational degrees of freedom. Beam cross sections are described by means of the coordinates ξ β directed along Eˆ β . 2008. Beam model The original geometrically exact formulation for beams due to Simo and Vu Quoc [21.e. S ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. Let Eˆ i and {eˆi } be the spatially fixed material and spatial frames1. t ) by means of the incremental rotation tensor as Λ = Λ n Λ 0 ∈ SO (3). The planes of the cross sections are normal to the vector tangent to the reference curve3. “Systemic Analysis” 5 .ro Computational Model for Buildings With Energy Dissipators Subjected to Seismic Action which intend to capture appropriately the energy dissipating capacity of the devices [13]. t ) (at time t) and the local orientation frame is simultaneously rotated together with the beam cross section. 22] is expanded here for considering an intermediate curved reference configuration according to [7].S = tˆ01 (S ) . tˆ1 does not coincides with ϕˆ . In this work. i. from Λ 0 (S ) to Λ(S. Intersections/Intersecţii. Vol. a fully geometric and constitutive nonlinear formulation for beam elements is developed. In general. The mixing rule is employed for the treatment of the resulting composite. FINITE DEFORMATION FORMULATION FOR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS 2. A brief description of the damage indices capable of estimate the remaining load carrying capacity of the buildings is also given. concrete and EDDs.

respectively. No. An objective measure of the strain rate vector sˆn acting on any material point can be deduced using the definition of the Lie derivative ⎡∇ ⎤ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ operator • [11. () ISSN 1582-3024 Article No.intersections.H. nˆ and mˆ ( S ) = ∫ ( xˆ − ϕˆ ) × Pˆ1dΑ Α mˆ are obtained as εˆn = ΛT εˆn Pˆ jm = ΛT Pˆ j . (2) the term defined as γˆn = ϕˆ . 11] Fn = FF0−1 = ⎤ 1 ⎡ ~ ⎢ϕˆ . Α The material form of Pˆ j . t ) + ∑ ξ β tˆ β ( S . by Γ The material representation of Fn is obtained as Fn = Λ Fn Λ 0 . ξ β .C. S −t1 corresponds to the reduced strain measure of shearing and elongation [9. The deformation gradient Fn := FF0−1 is responsible for the development of strains and can be expressed as [9. s −tˆ1 + ωn ∑ ξ β tˆβ ⎥ ⊗ tˆ01 + Λ n F0 ⎣ β ⎦ ~ ≡ Λ . The deformation gradients of the curved reference beam and of the current beam referred to the straight beam are denoted by F0 and F. Mata. Boroschek and J. which conjugated to the asymmetric First Piola Kirchhoff (FPK) stress tensor P = Pˆi ⊗ tˆ0 i referred to the curved 1 reference beam [21]. mˆ m = ΛT nˆ and mˆ m = ΛT mˆ . 12] as follows: 1 The indices i and β range over {1. t ) = ϕˆ ( S . Intersections/Intersecţii.3}and ¶∈⇔3♦. “Systemic Analysis” 6 . Vielma because of the shearing [21]. respectively. The position vector of a material point on the current beam is xˆ ( S . x is used to denote partial differentiation of • with respect to A. Oller.4. In Eq. S. 21] with material description given ˆ = ΛT γˆ . 2008. (1) implies that the current beam configuration is determined by (ϕˆ . It is possible to construct T m the strain tensor ε n = Fn − Λ n . Vol.5. t ) = ϕˆ + ∑ Λξ β Eˆ β β β Eq. The spatial strain vector acting on the current beam cross section is obtained as εˆn = ε nt 0i and the spatial stress resultant to nˆ and stress couple mˆ vectors can be estimated from Pˆ1 according nˆ ( S ) = ∫ Pˆ1dΑ. εˆn . R. Λ ) .2. 22]. ΛT is the curvature tensor relative to where F0 is the determinant of F0 and ω n n S n the curved reference beam. 3The symbol (• ). Barbat. 2 The symbol SO(3) is used to denote the finite rotation manifold [21. P.Systemic Analysis http://www. respectively.1.

n n The classical form of the equations of motion of the Cosserat beam for the static case are nˆ . the first mass moment density and the second mass moment density per unit of length of the curved reference beam. Energy dissipating devices ISSN 1582-3024 Article No.s ∑ ζ β tˆβ β ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦β T ~ & Λ is the current spin or angular velocity of the beam cross section with where υ n ≡ Λ n n T respect to the curved reference beam. their explicit expressions can be consulted in references [9.S + nˆ p = A ρ 0ϕ&ˆ& + αˆ n S ρ 0 + υ~nυ~n S ρ 0 14 424 43 D1 mˆ . h ) corresponding to the weak form of the balance equations [7. 2008. Λ. 22] [( ) ] G (ϕˆ .s − υ~nϕˆ.intersections.2. integrating over the length of the curved reference beam and integrating by parts.4.1. ) and δθˆ. Λ ) [22]. h ) = ∫ δϕˆ . taking the dot product with Eqs. No. ( ) Considering a kinematically admissible variation4 h ≡ δϕˆ . S +ϕˆ . −δθˆ × ϕˆ . && ΛT − υ~ 2 is the angular acceleration of the beam cross section and υˆ and αˆ are α~n ≡ Λ n n n n n ~ ~ the axial vectors of υ n and α n .Systemic Analysis http://www. S ⋅mˆ dS [ − ∫ [δϕˆ ⋅ nˆ L ] + ∫ δϕˆ ⋅ Aρ 0ϕ&ˆ& + δθˆ ⋅ (I ρ 0αˆ n + υˆn I ρ 0υˆn )dS L L The terms p ] ( + δθˆ ⋅ mˆ p dS − δϕˆ ⋅ nˆ + δθˆ ⋅ mˆ (δϕˆ . Λ.s + υ~n . Vol. 2. 22]. S −δθˆ × ϕˆ . Aρ 0 . we obtain the nonlinear functional G (ϕˆ . Sˆρ 0 and I ρ 0 are the cross sectional mass density. the terms D1 and D2 can be neglected. (5a) and (5b). S S S ) L 0 =0 appearing in Eq. Intersections/Intersecţii. For most of the practical cases. (4) is Sˆ = Λ sˆ . S ×nˆ + mˆ p = I ρ 0αˆ n + υ~n I ρ 0υˆn + Sρ 0 × ϕ&ˆ& 123 D2 ˆ p are the external body force and body moment per unit of reference length where nˆ p and m at time t. (6) correspond to the co–rotated variations of the reduced strain measures γˆn and ωˆ n in spatial description. S ⋅ nˆ + δθˆ Computational Model for Buildings With Energy Dissipators Subjected to Seismic Action ⎡∇⎤ ⎡∇⎤ ⎡ ∇ ⎤ sˆn = ⎢εˆ&n ⎥ = ⎢γˆ&n ⎥ + ⎢ω~& n ⎥ ∑ ζ β tˆβ = ϕ&ˆ. δθˆ of the pair (ϕˆ . “Systemic Analysis” 7 . The material form of Eq. respectively. respectively.

respectively [11. P. No.t ) where it was assumed that I ρ 0 ≈ 0 . Supposing that the current orientation of the EDD bar of initial ( ) & * ≠ 0 . S = 0. t ) = ϕˆ (S . −υ~ ϕˆ . Degrading materials: damage model ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. Vielma The finite deformation model for EDDs is obtained from the beam model releasing the rotational degrees of freedom and supposing that all the mechanical behavior of the device is described in terms of the evolution of a unique material point in the middle of the resulting bar. )) ⋅ Eˆ } ≈ Γˆ1 (t ) 1 ( L*/ 2. material points on the cross sections are considered as formed by a composite material corresponding to a homogeneous mixture of different simple components. The constitutive models are formulated in terms of the m material form of the FPK stress and strain vectors.H. The current position of a point in the EDD bar is obtained from Eq. The term δΓˆ1 = (Λ *T (δϕˆ . t ) . Oller.5.1. the contribution of the EDDs to the rotational mass of the system is negligible and [M]d is the EDD’s translational inertia matrix. Λ*. Intersections/Intersecţii. Λ dissipative point in the EDD is obtained as ϕˆ (L * / 2. Vol.t dt S n S ( L*/ 2. 3.e. 12].intersections. CONSTITUTIVE MODELS In this work. R. 2008. S −δθˆ × ϕˆ . (1) and considering that ξ β =0 as xˆ (S . Barbat.4. 3. (2) and (4) as Γˆ1 (t ) = {(Λ *T ϕˆ . S ) ⋅ Eˆ1} ( L*/ 2. the spatial position of the length L* is given by the tensor Λ * (t ). Pˆ1 and εˆn . written in the material description.Systemic Analysis A. Mata. i.1. “Systemic Analysis” 8 .t ) Finally. The resulting behavior is obtained by means of the mixing theory. S )) ⋅ Eˆ1 corresponds to the material form of the variation of the axial strain in the EDD.t ) −1 d & Γˆ1 (t ) = {(Λ *T (ϕ&ˆ .C. the contribution of the EDD bar to the functional of Eq. (6). t ) where L*/2 is the arch–length coordinate of the middle point in the bar element and the axial strain and the axial strain rate in the dissipative point are obtained from Eqs. S. Boroschek and J. is given by G EDD = ∫ n1mδΓˆ1dS + {( Λ *T δϕˆ )T [M]d (Λ *T ϕ&ˆ&)} L* ( L*/ 2. each of them with its own constitutive law. Two kinds of nonlinear constitutive models for simple materials are used: the damage and plasticity models.

limits are reached and are defined as 0 0 ± Ppm0i ε ni 3 (Ψt0. ( Ψc ) L .5. r and n are given in function of the tension and compression strengths fc and ft and the parts of the free energy density developed when the tension. 2008. as m F = P − f c = [1 + r (n − 1)] 3 ∑ (P i =1 ) − fc ≤ 0 m 2 p 0i where P is the equivalent stress. Intersections/Intersecţii. Vol. where G f is the tensile fracture energy and lc is the characteristic d d d length of the fractured domain. (9) shows that the FPK stress vector is obtained from its elastic counterpart by multiplying it by the factor (1d). The parameter · is calibrated to obtain an amount of dissipated energy equal to the specific fracture energy of the material g f = G f / lc . Pˆp 0 . f c = (2 ρΨ E ) .c ) L = ∑ 2ρ0 i =1 1 2 0 L .1. n = c . (Ψt ) L . G (X ) = 1 − G (X ) X * k (1− X = 1− e X X X* where the term G (X ) gives the initial yield stress for certain value of the scalar parameter X = X * and for X → ∞ the final strength is zero.4. 5] is defined as a function of the undamaged elastic free energy density and written in terms of the components of the material form of the undamaged principal stresses. No. Starting from an appropriated form of the free energy density and considering the fulfillment of the Clasius–Plank inequality and applying the Coleman’s principle [11] the following constitutive relation in material form is obtained: Pˆ1m = (1 − d ) C meεˆn = C msεˆn = (1 − d ) Pˆ01m me ms me where C and C = (1-d) C is the secant constitutive tensor. r = ft 0 t 0 c 0 ∑ ∑ 3 i =1 3 i =1 Ppm0i Ppm0i A more general expression equivalent to that given in Computational Model for Buildings With Energy Dissipators Subjected to Seismic Action The progress of the damage is based on the evolution of the scalar damage parameter d ∈ [0. 1] [15]. Eq.Systemic Analysis http://www. The evolution law for the internal damage variable d is given by ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. “Systemic Analysis” 9 .intersections. ΨL = ( Ψt ) L + ( Ψc ) L 0 1 2 0 L 0 f f t = (2 ρΨ E ) . or compression. The damage yield criterion F [2. (10a) [2] is given by F = G (P ) − G ( f c ) . A. Viscosity The rate dependent behavior is considered by using the Maxwell model. if μ& > 0 then F = 0. The FPK stress mt m vector Pˆ1 is obtained as the sum of a rate independent part Pˆ1 . μ&F = 0 have to be employed to derive F < 0 the condition (c) imposes μ& = 0 .1. The linearized increment of the FPK stress vector (material and co–rotated forms) are calculated as ∇ ∇ ΔPˆ1mt = C mv Δεˆn + η sm ΔSˆn .H. The explicit form of the terms ΔSˆn and Δ[ sˆn ] and the material description of the tangent constitutive tensor C mv can be consulted in reference [12].4. Finally. 3. S. (b) F ≤ 0 .1. Oller. C mv = (1 − d )C me . 2008.C.2. finite plastic deformations. Plastic materials In the case of materials which can undergo non–reversible deformations the plasticity model formulated in the material configuration is used for predicting their mechanical response. on the the 3. No.Systemic Analysis http://www.5. k p ) m ˆ P1 = ρ 0 = C ms (εˆn − εˆnP ) = C meεˆne e ∂εˆn ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. and the parameter η is the viscosity. if contrary. R. and a viscous mv component Pˆ1 as η ˆ Pˆ1mt = Pˆ1m + Pˆ1mv = C mvεˆn + η sm Sˆn = (1 − d )C me (εˆn + Sn ) E0 where η sm = η / E0 C ms is the secant viscous constitutive tensor.e. (c) unloading–reloading conditions i. an appropriated form of the free energy density and analogous procedures as those for the damage model we have ∂Ψ (εˆne . (9).1. “Systemic Analysis” 10 . Intersections/Intersecţii. Eq. the Kuhn-Thucker relations: (a) μ& ≥ 0 . Barbat. Vielma ∂G ∂F d& = μ& = μ& ∂P ∂P where μ& = P& ≥ 0 is the damage consistency parameter [11]. Δ[ Pˆ1t ] = C sv Δ[εˆ n ] + η ss Δ[ sˆ n ] where C ∇ sv = ΛC mv ΛT and η ss = Λη sm ΛT . Boroschek and J. Mata.intersections. P. Assuming small elastic.

k p ) = Pp ( Pˆ1m ) − f p ( Pˆ1m . No. (b) F p ≤ 0 and (c) λ& F p = 0 . the following evolution equation has been proposed: f p ( Pˆ1m . k p ) = K m where Pp ( Pˆ1 ) is the equivalent stress. 16.4. Intersections/Intersecţii. “Systemic Analysis” 11 . the yield function.1. k p .Systemic Analysis http://www. Both. respectively. In what regards the hardening function of Eq.3. (10c) and the scalar functions σt(kp) and σc(kp) describe the evolution of the yielding threshold in uniaxial tension and compression tests. 3. Mixing theory for composites ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. In this work. 17].ro Computational Model for Buildings With Energy Dissipators Subjected to Seismic Action e P where the εˆn is the elastic strain calculated subtracting the plastic strain εˆn from the total strain εˆn and ρ0 is the density in the material configuration. The P flow rules for the internal variables εˆn and kp are defined as ε&ˆnP =λ& ( ) ∂Gp ∂Gp & & ˆ m P . The integral term in Eq.e. (17) corresponds to the energy dissipated by means of plastic work. k = λ % P k G ⋅ = %ˆ( Pˆ1m . and plastic potential function. kp constitutes a measure of the p 1 p energy dissipated during the plastic process and it is defined [17] as g = P f G Pf ∞ 1 = ∫ Pˆ1m ⋅ ε&nP dt . 0 ≤ [ k p = P t =0 lc gf ∫ t t =0 Pˆ1m ⋅ ε nP dt ] ≤ 1 P where G f is the specific plastic fracture energy of the material in tension and lc is the length of the fractured domain defined in analogous manner as for the damage model. As it is a standard practice in plasticity. G Pf ) ⋅ εˆ&nP . (a) λ& ≥ 0 . which is compared with the hardening function f ( Pˆ m . p p f 1 m m ˆ ˆ ∂P1 ∂P1 where λ& is the plastic consistency parameter and %ˆ is the following hardening vector [16]. Explicit expressions of λ& and of the material form of the tangent constitutive tensor can be reviewed in references [11. Gp are formulated in terms of m the FPK stress vector Pˆ1 and the plastic damage internal variable kp as F p ( Pˆ1m . . (16). k p ) = 0 . . k ) and K is a constant value [16]. the loading/unloading conditions are derived in the standard form from the Kuhn-Tucker relations formulated for problems with unilateral restrictions.intersections. Vol. i. k p ) = rσ ( k p ) + (1 − r )σ c ( k p ) where r has been defined in Eq. 2008.5. Gp ( Pˆ1m . Fp .

“Systemic Analysis” 12 . Mata.. No. The material form of the secant and tangent constitutive tensors for the composite. Barbat.4. Vol. which correspond to a viscous dashpot device acting in parallel with a nonlinear hysteretic spring. R. including the participation of rate dependent effects. Ψ .Systemic Analysis http://www. 2008. ε&1 the strain m rate. is obtained in analogous way as for simple materials i.. is obtained as the weighted sum of the free energy densities of the N components. The model uncouples the total stress in viscous and non-viscous components. P. t the time. Constitutive relations for EDDs The constitutive law proposed for EDDs is based on a previous work of the authors [13] which provides a versatile strain–stress relationship with the following general form: m m P m(ε1 .C. Supposing N different components coexisting in a generic material point subjected to the same material strain εˆn . ε&1 .5. 4.H.intersections. and the total volume. Intersections/Intersecţii. Boroschek and J. NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. The purely viscous component does not requires to be a linear function of the strain rate. 3. and variable elastic modulus can be reproduced [13]. t ) where P m m is the average stress in the EDD. q The material form of the FPK stress vector Pˆ1 for the composite.4. are obtained in an analogous manner [16]. P1 and P2 are the strain dependent and rate dependent parts of the stress. S. = (εˆn )q = . mt ( ) N N ⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤ η Pˆ1mt ≡ ∑ kq Pˆ1m + Pˆ1mv q = ∑ k p ⎢(1 − d )C me ⎜⎜ εˆn + Sˆn ⎟⎟⎥ E0 ⎠⎦ q q q ⎝ ⎣ where (Pˆ ) m 1 q and (Pˆ ) mv 1 q correspond the strain and rate dependent stresses of each one of the N components. = (εˆn )N . V. we have the following closing equation: εˆn ≡ (εˆn )1 = .ro A. such that ∑k p = 1. respectively. Additionally.1. Vq. ε1 the strain level.. t ) = P1 (ε1 . Oller. C ms and C mt .e. The free energy density of the composite.. t ) + P2 (ε&1 . The weighting factors th correspond to the quotient between the volume of the q component. Vielma Each material point on the beam cross section is treated as a composite material according to the mixing theory [16]. hardening. which imposes the strain compatibility between components.

5 DAMAGE INDICES A measure of the damage level of a material point can be obtained as the ratio of the existing stress level to its elastic counter part. The linearization of the inertial and external components. Λ * . KM* and KV*. give the geometric. gives the tangential stiffness [22]. (22) as L[G * ] = G * + K I* + K M * + K V * + K G * + K P* The solution of the discrete form of Eq. [ Υ* ]. evaluated at the configuration (ϕˆ* . material and viscous parts of the tangent stiffness. h ) ⋅ p where L[G (ϕˆ* . h ) + DG (ϕˆ* . Λ * . DG ine ⋅ p and DG ext ⋅ p give the inertial and load dependent parts of the tangential stiffness. No.4. h )] = G (ϕˆ* . L ] 424444 3 14444 1444424444 3 1444 4244444 3 K v* K M* K G* ~ where the operators [ C* ]. Λ ) = (ϕˆ . (6) is written as L[G (ϕˆ* . 11.1. (25) by using the FE method follows identical procedures as those described in [22] for an iterative Newton-Rapson integration scheme and it will not be included here. L ] L [ 0. external and internal terms. h ) supplies the unbalanced force and it is composed by the contributions of the inertial. h )] is the linear part of the functional G (ϕˆ . Λ * . and it can be consulted in [22. Λ * . respectively.12. the linearized form of Computational Model for Buildings With Energy Dissipators Subjected to Seismic Action In order to obtain a numerical solution. Vol. The term * ( * ) G (ϕˆ* . h ) ⋅ p . which allows to rewrite Eq. it is possible to define ∨ the fictitious damage variable D as [2] 3 3 ∑P i =1 m 1i 3 ⎛ ⎞ = ⎜1 − D ⎟∑ P1mi0 → D = 1 − ⎝ ⎠ i =1 ∨ ∨ ∑P i =1 3 ∑P i =1 ISSN 1582-3024 m 1i m 1i 0 Article No. [nS*]. Δθˆ is an admissible variation. “Systemic Analysis” 13 . h ) at the configuration (ϕˆ . Λ * ) . 2008.intersections. and DG (ϕˆ* . Λ . [ B* ]. The linearization of the internal term is calculated as [ ] ( [ ] [ ]) ~ T T ~ ] − [B ]T F DG int ⋅ p = ∫ hT [B* ] C*st [B* ]pdS + ∫ hT ⋅ [B* ] Υ*st [ν * ]pdS + ∫ hT [n * pd S* * [0 . Intersections/Intersecţii.Systemic Analysis http://www. Λ * .5. The linearized terms KG*. Λ ) and p ≡ Δϕˆ . Following this idea. [ν * ] and [ F ] can be consulted in st st references [9. 22]. Λ * . 23]. K I* and K P * .

1 Seismic response of a precast RC building with EDDs The nonlinear seismic response of a typical precast RC industrial building shown in Figure 1 is studied. The half part of the building is meshed using 4 quadratic elements with two Gauss integration points for the resulting beam and column. the material remains elastic and D = 0 . S.H.000 MPa. but when all ∨ the energy of the material has been dissipated P1im → 0 and D → 1 .ro A. The properties of the device were: a yielding force of 150.1. “Systemic Analysis” 14 . Vielma where P1im and P1im0 are the absolute values of the components of the existing and elastic ∨ stress vectors. respectively.intersections.000 N. The compression limit of the concrete is 35 MPa with an elastic modulus of 290. Vol.2. Boroschek and J. 6 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES 6. The beam has an initial high of 60 cm on the supports and 160 cm in the middle of the span. 2008. The story hight is 12 m. Intersections/Intersecţii. R.5 mm. (26) can be extended to consider elements or even the whole structure by means of integrating over a finite volume as explained in reference [11]. The ultimate tensile stress for the steel is 510 MPa. Initially. Oller. The EED element was calibrated for reproducing a plastic dissipative mechanism. This figure also shows some details of the steel reinforcement of the cross sections. The dimensions of the columns are 60x60 cm2. Barbat. Eq.5. ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. Mata. The input acceleration corresponds to the N–S component of the EL Centro 1940 earthquake. P. The building has a bay width of 24 m and 12 m of inter–axes length. The permanent loads considered are 1050 N/m2 and the weight of upper half of the closing walls with 432.000 N for a displacement of 1.4. It has been assumed a Poisson coefficient of 0.C. No.Systemic Analysis http://www.

A reduction of approximately 40 % is obtained for the maximum lateral displacement when compared with the bare frame.Systemic Analysis http://www.intersections. 2008. Figure 3 shows the time history response of the horizontal displacement of the upper beam– column joint. Intersections/Intersecţii. Vol. No. as expected. “Systemic Analysis” 15 .1. A possible explanation for the limited effectiveness of the EDD is that the devices only contribute to increase the ductility of the beam–column joint without alleviating the base shear demand on the columns due to the dimensions of the device and its location in the structure. evidencing that part of the dissipated energy is concentrated in the controlling devices. It is possible to appreciate that the non– controlled structure (bare frame) presents greater lateral displacements and more structural Computational Model for Buildings With Energy Dissipators Subjected to Seismic Action The results of the numerical simulations allow seeing that the employment of plastic EDDs contributes to improve the seismic behavior of the structure.5. Figure 2a shows the hysteretic cycles obtained from the lateral displacement of the upper beam–column joint and the horizontal reaction (base shear) in the columns for the structure with and without devices. Figure 2b shows the hysteretic cycles obtained in the EDD. ISSN 1582-3024 Article No.4.

Each material point of the cross section is assumed to be composed of several simple materials with their own constitutive laws. R. The mixing rule is used to describe the resulting composite. 2008. The present formulation is validated by means of a numerical example: the study of the seismic response of a RC precast structure with A. Beam cross sections are meshed into a grid of quadrilaterals corresponding to fibers directed along the beam axis. “Systemic Analysis” 16 .4. The resulting model is implemented in a displacement based FEM code. Barbat. P.Systemic Analysis http://www. a geometrically exact formulation for initially curved beams has been extended to consider arbitrary distributions of composite materials on the cross sections in the seismic case.5. Viscosity is included at constitutive level by means of a Maxwell model. based on the beam model but releasing the rotational degrees of freedom. Boroschek and J. Vol.H. Intersections/Intersecţii. No. Mata. ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. Local and global damage indices have been developed based on the ratio between the visco elastic and nonlinear stresses.1. Vielma 7 CONCLUSIONS In this work. An iterative Newton-Rapson scheme is used for the solution of the discrete version of the linearized problem.intersections. An specific element for EDD is developed. S. Oller. Two additional integration loops are required at cross sectional level in each integration point to obtain the reduced quantities. The consistent linearization of the weak form of the momentum balance equations considers the constitutive nonlinearity with rate dependent effects.C.

Seminar on seismic isolation. Oller. Barbat. Robert D.H. Applied Technology Council.1. E. A. Vielma P. Computational Model for Buildings With Energy Dissipators Subjected to Seismic Action Acknowledgement This research was partially supported by the European Commission. References 1. Ian D.D. S. Mata A. Computational Mechanics. Barbat. A. CEE–FP6 Project FP650544(GOCE) ”Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides (LESSLOSS)”. March 1993. Atsushi Watanabe. Static analysis of beam structures under nonlinear geometric and constitutive behavior. No. Journal of Structural Engineering.Systemic Analysis http://www. Journal fo Structural Engineering. Vol. Philip J. “Systemic Analysis” 17 . Batchman. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanic and Engineering. Proceedings. Ian Aiken. Damage-controlled structures. 1997. 2008. Mata A.J. I: Preliminary design methodology for seismically active regions.4.intersections. Viscous damage model for Timoshenko beam structures. Nims. K. J. 2002. Kasuhiko Kasai. Journal of Structural Engineering. A. 2003. Robert E. Conputers and Structures. project BIA200308700-C03-02 ”Numerical simulation of the seismic behavior of structures with energy dissipation devices”. Oller. 5.K.Wada. 129(2):206–214. Los Angeles. reinforcement and retrofit of civil engineering structures (RECOMP)” by the Spanish Government (Ministerio de Fomento) ”Numerical simulation methodology for the reinforced concrete behavior structures reinforced with composite materials”. JEE. 34(30):3953– 3976. ATC-17-1. Y. Iwata. 8. 1998. Comparative study of frames using viscoelastic and viscous dampers. Oller. S.C. Ritchter. S. A. Connor. A. Lin. 2. 7. by the Spanish Government (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia). R. California. 11 A. Hanganu. Procedings. State of the art and state of the practice in seismic engineering dissipation. Kapania. J. and J. Intersections/Intersecţii. 2003. Kazuhiko Kasai.H. Passive energy dissipation hardware and applications. Huang. Study on damping reduction factors for buildings under earthquake ground motions. 4.H. (Submited). Y. 10. P. 1998. 123(4):423–431. Hanson.H. San Francisco. Barbat. Journal of Structural Engineering. A. On finite element implementation of geometrically nonlinear Reissners beam theory: three-dimensional curved beam elements. Yaomin Fu. M. 6. All this support is gratefully acknowledged. Passive control systems for seismic damage mitigation. 2006. Hanganu. P. Yaomin Fu. A. O˜nate.H. O˜nate. 80:1667–1687. 124:(5):501–512. ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. 122:11–26. Finite element methodology for local/global damage evaluation in civil engineering structures. passive energy dissipation and active control. 1995. 9. 124(5):513–522. E. 3. Chang. Douglas K. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 1997. 11. project MAT2003-09768-C03-02 ”Delamination of reinforced matrix composites (DECOMAR)” project BIA2005-06952 ”Study of composite materials for design.C. International Journal for Solids and Structures. Lo Angeles County and Seaosc Symposium on Passive Energy Dissipation Systems for New and Existing Buildings.5.Y. July 1996. Ibrahimbegović. 30:428–443. Li. Aiken. On a geometrically exact curved/twisted beam theory under rigid crosssection assumption.

intersections. Miquel. Simo. L.C. G. Alex H. 15. 24. A plastic damage constitutive model for composites materials. Nukala. Pineridge Press. 49:55–70. Part II: Computational aspects. 287–95. Pablo Mata A. Oller. 2006. O˜nate. 42:301–330. K. Barbat. ISSN 1582-3024 Article No. R. 23. L. Dargush. Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in Structural Engineering. E. 1985. Oliver J. 1990. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2004. 2:945– 958. S. Intersections/Intersecţii. T. 17. On the dynamics in space of rods undergoing large motions – A geometrically exact approach. E. 1996. A mixed finite element for three-dimensional nonlinear analysis of steel frames. Studies in Applied Mathematics. 21.C. Simo. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanic and Engineering. “Systemic Analysis” 18 . 1986. International Journal of Solids and Structures. Mata. Oller S. Vu-Quoc. Simo.V.F. Journal of Structural Engineering. Botello. 122(1):76–82. 22. 33(17):2501–2518. Soong. Design of energy dissipation devices based on concept of damage control. A. J. Reissner. 20. A. P. Shen. S. Numerical formulations of elastoviscoplastic response of beams accounting for the effect of shear. White. 1984. Miquel. High damping rubber model for energy dissipating devices. P.T Soong. A. J. The three-dimensional dynamic problem. J.L. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. Hjelmstad. A finite strain beam formulation. 66:125–161.Systemic Analysis http://www. Numerical code for seismic analysis of structures incorporating energy dissipating devices. Rub´en Boroschek K. Mixing anisotropic formulation for the analysis of composites. Simo.H. 1973. Proceedings 2nd ICCAADCS. O˜nate. 18. On one-dimensional large-displacement finite-strain beam theory. LII. Phani Kumar V. Switzerland. Taylor. 14. Keith D. (Submited). Cervera M. Barbat. Oller. 2008.5. 3-8 September 2006. Part I. 1997. 12 (1996) 471–482. R.T. S.H. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. S. 16.4. E. First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. J. J. Mata A. 193(5):2507–2545. Sergio Oller. S. T. ECEES. 13. Vielma 12. Lubliner J..C. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering.C. Oller. Geneva. No. P.1. Boroschek. Donal W. Vol. 1988. Oller. Boroschek and J.H. 19. Austria. Zell Am See. Barbat. 25. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. A three-dimensional finite-strain rod model. 2005. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanic and Engineering. Isotropic damage models and smeared crack analysis of concrete. Oller.. 2006. Dynamic analysis of beam structures considering geometric and constitutive nonlinearity. (Accepted). J..C. Vu-Quoc. JEE. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanic and Engineering. Mata A. John Wiley & Soms Ltda. 58:79– 116. S. Robert L.