You are on page 1of 17

New Spread Plasticity Model for Reinforced

Concrete Structural Elements Accounting for


Both Gravity and Lateral Load Effects
Mehdi Izadpanah 1 and Ali Reza Habibi 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The spread plasticity models that are generally used for nonlinear analysis include the uniform, linear, and, more recently, power
spread plasticity models. Because all of these models are formulated from a linear moment diagram subjected to lateral loading apart from the
effect of gravity loading, it has been assumed that the predefined shape of their curvature extends from the two ends of the element. This
assumption can lead to incorrect outcomes in nonlinear analysis. In this study, a distributed plasticity model is developed that considers the
effects of both gravity and lateral loading. To derive the proposed model, the unit load theory based on the principle of virtual work is used,
and a general formulation is prepared to achieve the stiffness matrix of each beam-column element with the different flexibility properties
along it. To confirm the accuracy of the proposed methodology, seven numerical examples are assessed. It is demonstrated that the results of
the proposed model differ from the linear flexibility model when using only one element for each member, although the difference can be
decreased by subdividing the individual structural members into more than one element. The accuracy of the proposed model is corroborated
through comparison with experimental results. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002016. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Spread plasticity; Lateral load; Gravity load; Curvature; Flexibility.

Introduction (Roh et al. 2012) and a stiffness matrix can be obtained based
on predefined patterns (Park et al. 1987; Kim and Kurama 2008;
While evaluating the actual behavior of structures, especially under Lee and Filippou 2009; Mergos and Kappos 2012; Roh et al. 2012;
severe loading conditions, the nonlinear behavior of the structural Mazza 2014; Pan et al. 2016). Although these models are more
elements must be taken into account. The individual stiffness ma- compatible with the behavior of RC members than with lumped
trix of each element should be updated and assembled to compose plasticity ones, there are two manifest disadvantages as demon-
the global structural stiffness for nonlinear analyses such as inelas- strated by Izadpanah and Habibi (2015): (1) These models distrib-
tic dynamic and static analysis. ute the flexibility of the two ends along the member because their
To model inelastic deformation in a simple and efficient way, a predicted pattern is simply based on the moment-curvature diagram
macromodeling procedure has been adopted and incorporated in under lateral loading while neglecting the effect of gravity loading.
the analysis. There are two basic approaches for considering the plas- This assumption can lead to incorrect results when the members
tification of beam-column elements: (1) the lumped plasticity encounter significant gravity loads. In fact, the relations of these
approach (concentrated plastic hinge) and (2) the distributed plastic- models are based on the linear moment distribution; therefore, if
ity approach (spread plasticity). In the former, plastification is con- gravity loading is considered, the distribution will obviously change
centrated in the predefined locations of the elements; therefore, the (Roh et al. 2012); (2) the cracked and yielded lengths are not sep-
accuracy of this method depends on the locations of predicted critical arated in these models, which can bring about inaccurate conse-
points (Giberson 1967; Otani and Sozen 1972; Berry et al. 2008; quences. In this study, earlier macro-plasticity models are addressed.
Birely et al. 2012; Amorim et al. 2013). These locations are usually The main objective of this research was to develop a new spread
considered to be at the two ends of the elements, with the member plasticity model for RC structural members to remedy the afore-
between two zero-length hinges remaining fully elastic. Because in- mentioned shortcomings. To achieve the plasticity formulation,
elastic deformation of reinforced concrete (RC) structural elements is each member is considered as one element and flexibility is distrib-
not concentrated in one place, but spreads along the member (because uted based on moment diagram regarding both the effects of lateral
cracks extend in the member), lumped plasticity models cannot and gravity loading. A procedure is proposed in which the actual
precisely reflect the nonlinear behavior of RC structures. flexibility of the separated lengths of a member in the fully elastic,
In the latter approach, once cracks develop in a member, the cracked, and yielded parts are allocated.
stiffness becomes non-uniform along the length of the member The accuracy of the proposed formulation is evaluated using
seven examples from previous studies. First, two simply-supported
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Kurdistan, beams are evaluated and the comparison between the results of the
6617715177 Sanandaj, Iran. proposed model and those of previous studies (Au and Bai 2007;
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Shahed Univ., Zhao et al. 2012) is performed. Afterward, the cyclic response of a
3319118651 Tehran, Iran (corresponding author). E-mail: ar.habibi@
bridge pier that has been tested by Stone and Cheok (1989) is ac-
shahed.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 14, 2017; approved
quired using the proposed spread plasticity (PSP) model, and the
on October 23, 2017; published online on February 22, 2018. Discussion outcomes are compared with the experimental results and those
period open until July 22, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted of the linear flexibility model (LFM). Then, the outcomes of the
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural En- proposed formulation are compared with a three-story, two-bay
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445. frame and a ten-story, two-bay frame, which are analyzed using

© ASCE 04018028-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


the IDARC 2D platform (Reinhorn et al. 2009) (LFM) with differ- of anchorage bond stress demand are considered. Alva and de
ent numbers of elements. A three-story, three-bay RC moment- Cresce El (2010) applied a lumped dissipation model in nonlinear
resistant frame is analyzed using an OpenSees framework with analysis of RC structures. They considered the dissipation of en-
different numbers of element integration sections, and the outcomes ergy of the RC members as a consequence of concrete damage
are compared with those of the PSP model. Finally, the outcomes of and steel reinforcement plasticity. To simplify things, it is supposed
the developed model are contrasted with the results of an experi- that energy dissipation is restricted to plastic hinges at the ends of
mental study. the member, while the rest of the member remains elastic. Birely
et al. (2012) presented a model to simulate the nonlinear re-
sponse of planar RC frames that includes all sources of flexibility.
Previous Research They modeled nonlinearity by introducing a dual-hinge lumped-
plasticity beam element comprising two rotational springs in series.
One spring simulates beam flexural response and the other simu-
Concentrated Plasticity Model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lates joint response.


Two-component and one-component models are some of the ear- Zhao et al. (2012) evaluated the plastic-hinge length in RC
liest models proposed for lumped plasticity. Clough and Johnston flexural members. They analytically considered the performance
(1966) suggested the two-component model in which a linear elas- of the plastic-hinge zone using the finite element method. Amorim
tic member in parallel with an elastic perfectly-plastic member are et al. (2013) proposed a model of fracture based on lumped damage
considered and the plastic deformation is concentrated in the plastic mechanics for RC arches. In this model, concrete cracking and
hinges at the ends of the element. The highly significant short- plastic yielding of the longitudinal reinforcements are concentrated
coming of this model is that it does not take stiffness degradation in the plastic hinges. Rahai and Nafari (2013) compared the lumped
into account. To tackle this problem, Giberson (1967) proposed the and distributed plasticity approaches in pushover analysis of a
one-component model, which consists of two nonlinear rotational portland cement frame bridge. The close correlation between out-
springs in which the inelastic deformation of the element is lumped comes illustrates the acceptable accuracy of the lumped plasticity
in both and the element between them is perfectly elastic. The major approach for the nonlinear modeling of nonprismatic bridge piers
advantage of this model is that the end deformation of the member with hollow sections. Babazadeh et al. (2016) found that the length
completely depends on the end springs of the element; therefore, of the critical plastic region in slender RC bridge columns is larger
this model is able to assign any moment-rotation hysteresis model than what had been obtained from previous models, which had
to the spring. The weak spot in the model is that it ignores the effect been developed for shorter columns.
of curvature distribution on the member-end rotation.
Giberson (1967) compared the one-component and two-
component models and showed that the one-component model is Distributed Plasticity Model
the more versatile of the two. Al-Haddad and Wight (1988) modified Despite the simplicity of the aforementioned lump plasticity mod-
the one-component model by changing the location of the plastic els, they do not accurately represent the distribution of plasticity
hinges at the ends of the member. Aoyama and Sugano (1968) ex- within individual members of a frame because of the assumption
tended the two-component model by dividing each element into four of an intrinsic zero-length plastic zone. To overcome this drawback,
parallel elements consisting of an elastic member and three elasto- discrete element models have been proposed. In these models, the
plastic members in parallel. Otani and Sozen (1972) put forward member can be subdivided into short line segments along the
the connected two-cantilever model. In this model, the member con- member and each short segment is assigned a nonlinear hysteric
sists of two imaginary cantilevers. The main limitation of this model characteristic. Nonlinear stiffness can be assigned within a segment
is the assumption of a fixed point of contraflexure in the element. or at the connection of two adjacent segments. Wen and Janssen
Mahin and Bertero (1976) reviewed the various ductility factor (1965) presented their models in this category and introduced a
definitions in the earthquake-resistant design. They proved that, be- multi-spring model for dynamic analysis of a plane frame. Powell
cause the two-component model substantially underestimates the (1975) put forward a degrading stiffness hysteresis model where
post-yielding stiffness of a member, the seismic response of the shorter segments are recommended in a region of high moment
structure will not be predicted accurately. To evaluate the effect of and longer segments in a low-moment region. Although these dis-
different hysteretic models, Anderson and Townsend (1977) con- crete element models are more accurate, they require more compu-
sidered four types of hysteretic models. They concluded that the tational effort than other plasticity models.
trilinear degrading connection model had the highest accuracy. As Unlike the discrete plasticity models, continuous models have
an option for concentrated plasticity, Kunnath and Reinhorn (1989) been developed using the prescribed distribution pattern of flexural
proposed a lumped plasticity model that was used in IDARC 2D flexibility along the length of a member. The parabolic-inflection
(Park et al. 1987). distribution (Takizawa 1973) and linear-inflection distribution (Park
Dides and De la Llera (2005) compared the lumped plasticity et al. 1987) models fall into this category. In parabolic-inflection
models for the dynamic analysis of building structures. They con- models, elastic flexibility at the inflection point is taken into ac-
cluded that the concentrated plasticity models are efficient tools for count, which is an interesting concept for analyzing an inelastic
nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures and are usually more ap- member. Soleimani et al. (1979) considered the spread of inelastic
propriate for steel than concrete structures. Inel and Ozmen (2006) deformation in a member. In this model, inelastic deformation as a
studied the effects of plastic-hinge properties on nonlinear analysis function of loading history spreads from the ends into the member
of RC buildings. They showed that the user should be aware of while the rest of the beam remains elastic. Emori and Schnobrich
using default-hinges and user-hinges in analyses because the mis- (1981) compared results obtained using the concentrated spring,
use of default-hinge properties may bring about unreasonable multiple spring, and layer beam models. They assessed the inelastic
displacement capacities for existing structures. response of the RC structural elements and determined which model
Berry et al. (2008) presented new models for predicting seismic relates to each element.
performance, including damage to ductile bridge columns. In this Meyer et al. (1983) developed a novel method of obtaining the
model, to define plastic-hinge length, column length, and a measure stiffness of the plastic zone during reloading. Their model was

© ASCE 04018028-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


extended by Roufaiel and Meyer (1987) to consider the effect of structures. Comparison of the outcomes of their model with refined
shear and axial forces on flexural hysteretic behavior. The linear- fiber and lumped plasticity models confirms the validity of the
inflection proposed by Park et al. (1987) was introduced in the model. Pan et al. (2016) proposed a computationally efficient fiber
original version of IDARC 2D. Although the parabolic-inflection beam-column element model to take reinforcement anchorage slip
and linear-inflection models are efficient for some members, their in the footing into account. They used the equivalent plastic-hinge
dependence on the location of inflection point is a drawback. To length of a cantilevered member for selecting the rational mesh size
overcome this obstacle and improve plasticity models, two spread to consider the effect of deformation localization in a displacement-
plasticity models based on a linear flexibility distribution and a uni- based fiber model. He et al. (2016) studied the relationship between
form flexibility distribution have been proposed. In both models, the optimum element size and the number of integration points. They
flexibility varies only in inelastic zones while the rest of the member evaluated the equivalent plastic-hinge length and correlated it to
is elastic with constant flexibility (Kunnath and Reinhorn 1989). optimal element size. They improved on some disadvantages of
Hajjar et al. (1998a) proposed a distributed plasticity model the force-based element and showed that both the local and global
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for cyclic analysis of concrete-filled steel tube beam-columns and responses can be well predicted using their proposed method.
composite frames. They presented the constitutive formulation and Habibi and Moharrami (2010) and Astroza et al. (2015) used spread
cyclic analysis ability of a three-dimensional fiber-based distributed plasticity models in their studies.
plasticity finite element for square or rectangular concrete-filled
steel tube beam-columns. They also used a distributed plasticity
model for concrete-filled steel tube beam-columns with interlayer Proposed Spread Plasticity Model
slip (Hajjar et al. 1998b). Scott and Fenves (2006) presented a new
plastic-hinge integration method derived from the Gauss-Radau
Extended Formulation
quadrature rule to overcome problems with nonobjective response
caused by strain-softening behavior in force-based beam-column The goal of this study was to develop a new plasticity formulation
finite elements. Lee and Filippou (2009) put forward an effective based on actual moment distribution for members that includes
beam-column element with variable inelastic end zones. Although the effects of lateral and gravity loading. To do so, if the element
the element uses only one monitoring section in each end of the is divided into several parts having different flexural stiffnesses as
inelastic zone of a structural member, the spread of inelastic defor- shown in Fig. 1, the rotation at each end can be obtained using the
mation under strain hardening response is considered in this model. flexural and shear flexibilities as follows:
Kim and Kurama (2008) used the spread plasticity model to re-  0   
flect flexural nonlinearity. Zhao et al. (2011) used the finite element θA f AA fAB M A0
¼ ð1Þ
method to investigate plastic-hinge length in RC flexural members. θB0 fBA fBB M B0
He and Zhong (2012) used the fiber section model to derive the
nonlinear relation of sectional deformation and internal forces and where fAA , f AB , and f BB = flexibility coefficients; θA0 and θB0 =
their interaction. Roh et al. (2012) proposed a power spread plas- rotations at the ends of the element; and MA0 and MB0 = correspond-
ticity model for inelastic analysis of RC structures and compared ing moments.
the suggested plasticity model with the linear plasticity model used Note that, in Fig. 1(c), because the sections along a RC element
in IDARC 2D. Kucukler et al. (2014) extended their stiffness reduc- exhibit different flexibility characteristics depending on the degree
tion to fully capture the detrimental influence of the spread of plas- of inelasticity, the number of divided parts varies in the different
ticity, residual stress, and geometrical imperfections on the capacity steps of analysis. The degree of stiffness that can be allocated to
of columns and beam-columns. Nguyen and Kim (2014) presented each part depends on the moment-curvature curve used. In Fig. 1(d),
a displacement-based finite element procedure for second-order M i , V i , and N i are the moment, shear, and axial forces of end i and
spread-of-plasticity analysis of plane steel frames with nonlinear θi , vi , and ui are their rotation and deformation, respectively. The
beam-to-column connections under dynamic and seismic loading. parameters of end j are similar to end i. The flexibility coefficients
Mazza (2014) proposed a distributed plasticity model to simu- in Eq. (1) can be derived using the unit load theory based on the
late the biaxial behavior in the nonlinear analysis of spatial framed principle of virtual work as

Fig. 1. (a) Rigid zone and ends definitions of a RC element; (b) considered RC element under arbitrary loads; (c) subdivided RC element with
constant flexural stiffness for each part; (d) RC element with six degrees of freedom

© ASCE 04018028-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


Z Z
L0 mi ðxÞmj ðxÞ L0 ν i ðxÞν j ðxÞ
f ij ¼ dx þ dx ð2Þ
0 EIðxÞ 0 GAðxÞ

where L 0 = length of the element without rigid zones; mi ðxÞ and mj ðxÞ = moment distributions owing to a virtual unit moment at ends
i and j, respectively; ν i ðxÞ and ν j ðxÞ = corresponding shear distributions (1=L 0 ); and EIðxÞ and GAðxÞ = flexural and shear stiffness along
the element, respectively. The flexibility coefficients can be obtained using unit load theory for the element shown in Fig. 1 as follows:
Z α L 0  x  x  Z α L 0  x  x  Z α L 0  x  x  Z L 0  1  1 
1 2
L0 L0 L0 L0 m
L0 L0 L0 L0
fBB ¼ dx þ dx þ · · · dx þ dx
0 EI 1 α1 L 0 EI 2 αðm−1Þ L 0 EI m 0 GAz
m−1   
L0 X 1 1 2 1
¼ − × ð2 ∝3i Þ þ ∝3m þ 0 ð3Þ
6 i¼1 EI i EI iþ1 EI m L GAz
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

     
Z ð1−xÞ ð1−xÞ Z ð1−xÞ ð1−xÞ Z ð1−xÞ ð1−xÞ Z  1  1 
α1 L 0 L0 L0 α2 L 0 L0 L0 αm L 0 L0 L0 L0
L0 L0
f AA ¼ dx þ dx þ · · · dx þ dx
0 EI 1 α1 L0 EI 2 αðm−1Þ L0 EI m 0 GAz
m−1   
L0 X 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 1
¼ − × ð6 ∝i −6 ∝i þ2 ∝i Þ þ × ð6 ∝m −6 ∝m þ2 ∝m Þ þ 0 ð4Þ
6 i¼1 EI i EI iþ1 EI m L GAz

x  x  x 


Z ð1−xÞ Z ð1−xÞ Z ð1−xÞ Z  1  1 
α1 L 0 L0 × L0 α2 L 0 L0 × L0 αm L 0 L0 × L0 L0
L0 L0
−fAB ¼ −fBA ¼ dx þ dx þ · · · dx þ dx
EI 10 α1 L 0 EI 2 αðm−1Þ L 0 EI m 0 GAz
    
L0 Xm−1
1 1 1 1
¼ − × ð3 ∝2i −2 ∝3i Þ þ × ð3 ∝2m −2 ∝3m Þ − 0 ð5Þ
6 i¼1 EI i EI iþ1 EI m L GAz

where αi = transformation point (restricting locations along the structural elements relating to flexibility change) depicted in Fig. 1(c); EI i and
EI m = current flexural stiffness of the ith and last part, respectively; and GAz = shear stiffness of the element and is considered to be constant
throughout the length.
The flexural and shear stiffness are determined from the trilinear hysteretic model proposed by Park et al. (1987). The extended expres-
sions have been rewritten to avert numerical instability. Closed-form solutions have been derived for the element stiffness matrix as follows:
L 1
fBB ¼ Qm f0 þ ð6Þ
3 i¼1 EI i BB L 0 GAz

L 1
fAA ¼ Qm f0 þ ð7Þ
3 i¼1 EI i AA L 0 GAz

L 1
−fAB ¼ −f AB ¼ Qm f0 − ð8Þ
3 i¼1 EI i AB L 0 GAz

where
m−1 Y
X m Y
m   Y
m−1
0
f BB ¼ EI i − EI i ∝3j þ EI i ∝3m ð9Þ
j¼1 i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
i≠j i≠jþ1

m−1 Y
X m Y
m   m−1
Y
0
f AA ¼ EI i − EI i ð3 ∝1j −3 ∝2j þ ∝3j Þ þ EI i ð3 ∝1m −3 ∝2m þ1 ∝3m Þ ð10Þ
j¼1 i¼1 i¼1 i¼1
i≠j i≠jþ1

X
m−1Y Y   Y−1  
m m
3 2 m
3 2
0
f AB ¼ EI i − EI i ∝ − ∝3j þ EI i 3
∝ − ∝m ð11Þ
j¼1 i¼1 i¼1
2 j i¼1
2 m
i≠j i≠jþ1

The inverse of the flexibility matrix given in Eq. (1) is the stiffness matrix relating to the moment and rotation at the ends of the element
and is expressed as:
 0   
MA K AA K AB θA0
¼ ð12Þ
M B0 K BA K BB θB0

where K AA , K AB , K BA , and K BB are computed in Eqs. (13)–(16) and are the components of the element stiffness matrix including moment and
shear deformation:

© ASCE 04018028-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


Qm  Y  where U = internal strain energy. After computing M A and V A , M B
3 EI i 02 0
m
K AA ¼ i¼1
0 L GAz f BB þ 3 EI i ð13Þ and V B are calculated using static equilibrium equations as:
L Det i¼1

Qm   VB ¼ WL − VA ð25Þ
3 EI i Y
m
K BB ¼ i¼1
L 02 GAz fAA
0 þ3 EI i ð14Þ
L 0D et WL2
i¼1
MB ¼ VA × L þ MA − ð26Þ
Qm   2
3 i¼1 EI i Ym
02 0
−K AB ¼ −K BA ¼ L GA f − 3 EI ð15Þ
L 0 Det z AB
i¼1
i It should be pointed out that in the present study, Eqs. (25) and
(26) have been extracted only for beam elements that are subjected
Y
m to uniform gravity loading, which is the most probable kind of
Det ¼ L 02 GAz ðf AA
0 0
fBB 0 2
− f AB Þþ3 0
EI i ðf AA 0
þ fBB 0
þ 2fAB Þ gravity loading in building frames. However, these equations
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

i¼1 can be altered and extended to deal with any arbitrary gravity
ð16Þ loading.

where Det = determinant of the flexibility matrix in Eq. (1).


The relations presented in this research prepare a general Determination of Transformation Points and
formulation to achieve the stiffness matrix of each beam-column Flexibility of Each Part
element considering the different flexibility properties along it In this study, the tangent stiffness matrix is obtained using one
[Eqs. (3)–(16)]. In fact, unlike the previous linear, uniform, and element for each member. To determine the transformation points
power flexibility plasticity models in which the plasticity relations and flexibility of each part, the moment distribution of the elements
were acquired based on the assumed flexibility distribution, the is assumed to be bilinear (one between end A and the middle point
proposed relations can be applied to achieve the stiffness matrix of C and the other between end B and the middle point C), and the
each flexibility distribution. assigned hysteric model (in this study, the vertex orientation is con-
One crucial aspect of structural elements that must be consid- sidered as described in Fig. 2) is evaluated at three points [A, B, and
ered is the altering of the effects of applied gravity loading on the C as shown in Fig. 1(b)].
end moment and shear force when members experience inelastic Note that the moment of middle point C is calculated from
deformation and non-uniform stiffness. To calculate these effects the static equilibrium equation (without subdividing the member).
for the member shown in Fig. 1, the least-work method is used in For example, Eq. (27) can be used to calculate the moment of point
which the internal strain energy is first determined. After that, the C when the uniform gravity load is applied as
first partial derivative of the energy with respect to the applied force
[here, moment (M A ) and shear force (V A ) of end A according to L0 WL 02
M C ¼ VA þ MA − ð27Þ
Fig. 1(b)] are acquired [Eqs. (17) and (18)]. These equations are 2 8
solved simultaneously to obtain M A and V A . The outcomes are
expressed in Eqs. (19) and (20) where M C and M A = moments of points C and A, respectively;
V A = shear of point A; and W = uniform gravity load.
∂U W As is evident in Fig. 2, the hysteric model contains three states:
¼ MA P1 þ VA P2 − P3 ¼ 0 ð17Þ
∂MA 2 (1) loading (depicted as 1), (2) unloading and reloading (depicted
as 2), and (3) transition to vertex (depicted as 3). The transforma-
∂U V L0 W wL 02 tion points and stiffness of each part are derived based on the state
¼ MA P2 þ VA P3 þ A − P4 − ¼0 ð18Þ of points A, B, and C. To do so, the moment diagram is assumed to
∂VA GAz 2 2GAz
be linear between points A and C, and C and B. The circumstances
WP3 − 2MA P1 for the first half of the member (between A and C) are illustrated
VA ¼ ð19Þ and the methodology will be same for the second half. The pro-
2P2
posed model for the first half of the beam is shown in Fig. 3.
 L0
 As show, the cracked and the yielded lengths (γL 0 and βL 0 ) are
WGAz P2 P4 − P2 WL 02 − GAz WP3 P3 þ GA calculated based on the linear moment diagram assumed between
MA ¼   L0
 z
ð20Þ
2GAz P22 − P1 P3 þ GA z

where
X
m−1   
0 1 1 1 1 1
P1 ¼ L − × xi þ x ð21Þ
i¼1
EIi EIiþ1 EIm m

m−1   
L 02 X 1 1 2 1 2
P2 ¼ − × xi þ x ð22Þ
2 i¼1
EIi EIiþ1 EIm m

m−1   
L 03 X 1 1 3 1 3
P3 ¼ − × xi þ x ð23Þ
3 i¼1
EIi EIiþ1 EIm m

m−1   
L 04 X 1 1 4 1 4
P4 ¼ − × xi þ x ð24Þ
4 i¼1
EIi EIiþ1 EIm m Fig. 2. Vertex-oriented hysteric model

© ASCE 04018028-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


b. jMcrA j < jM A j ≤ jMyA j
(1) jM C j ≤ jMcrC j

ðM crA − M A Þ
γA ¼ 0.5; βA ¼ 0
ðM C − M A Þ

αA ¼ fβ A ; γ A g; SA ¼ fEI y ; EI cr g ð31Þ

(2) jMcrC j < jM C j

γ A ¼ 0.25; βA ¼ 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

αA ¼ fβ A ; γ A g; SA ¼ fEI y ; EI cr g ð32Þ

c. jMyA j < jM A j
(1) jMyC j ≥ jM C j

ðM crA − M A Þ ðM yA − M A Þ
γA ¼ 0.5; βA ¼ 0.5
ðM C − MA Þ ðM C − M A Þ
Fig. 3. Distributions of (a) moment; (b) flexibility for the first half of
beam element αA ¼ fβ A ; γ A g; SA ¼ fEI y ; EI cr g ð33Þ

(2) jMyC j < jM C j

γ A ¼ 0; β A ¼ 0.25
points A and C. The parameters γ and β are calculated from the
corresponding end as follows: αA ¼ fβ A ; γ A g; SA ¼ fEI y ; EI cr g ð34Þ

ðM crA − M A Þ d. Double curvature M A M C < 0


γA ¼ 0.5 for jMA j > jMcrA j; In this case, the situations are similar to the single curvature
ðM C − M A Þ
but in Steps b and c, γ and β are obtained in Eqs. (31) and (33)
ðM yA − M A Þ whatever the value of the moment of point C. In all steps, when
βA ¼ 0.5 for jMA j > jMyA j ð28Þ
ðM C − M A Þ γ A or β A equal zero, the transportation point and its correspond-
ing stiffness (EI) will be eliminated from collections α and S.
ðM crC − M C Þ 2. If the state of end A is unloading or reloading, then the current
γC ¼ 0.5 for jMC j > jMcrC j; line of the moment diagram is compared with the previous
ðMA − M C Þ one (index P) to determine the junction point (xjunA ) of the two
ðM yC − M C Þ lines.
βC ¼ 0.5 for jMC j > jMyC j ð29Þ
ðM A − M C Þ
ΔM A
γ junA ¼ 0.5 ðΔM A ¼ M A − M AP ; ΔM C
where M crA and McrC = cracking moments in ends A and C, re- ΔMA − ΔM C
spectively; and M yA and M yC = yielding moments in ends A and ¼ M C − MCP Þ ð35Þ
C, respectively. It is worth emphasizing that all coefficients γ and
β should be between 0 and 0.5. If M A is positive, the values of M y The moment in junction point (M junA ) will be:
and M cr for calculating γ and β will be positive [Eqs. (28) and ðM C − M A Þ
(29)] and vice versa. Coefficients γ and β for each end cannot be lower M junA ¼ γ junA þ M A ð36Þ
than their maximums (γ Max and β Max ) in previous steps, regardless of 0.5
the values of the current moments. All transformation point coeffi-
cients and their corresponding stiffness are collected in collections if M junA M A ≥ 0 → γ UA ¼ fγ junA g ð37Þ
α and S, respectively. The methodology to generate the collections
α and S for end A is as follows (and is the same for all points):
1. If the state of end A is loading (in the hysteric model), then the if MjunA M A < 0 → γ UA ¼ fminðγ 0A ; γ 0AP Þg ð38Þ
single curvature and double curvature moment diagrams are
where γ 0A ¼ ½ð−M A Þ=ðMC − M A Þ0.5; γ 0AP ¼ ½ð−M Ap Þ=
considered.
ðM Cp − M Ap Þ0.5.
a. Single curvature M A M C > 0
After calculating γ UA , collections α and S are obtained as
(1) jMA j ≤ jMcrA j
follows:
γ A ¼ 0; βA ¼ 0 a. M A φA < 0
γ UA ≥ γ Amax → αA ¼ fγ Amax g; SA ¼ fEI A g ð39Þ
αA ¼ fβ A ; γ A g; SA ¼ fEI y ; EI cr g ð30Þ
γ UA < γ Amax → αA ¼ fγ UA ; γ Amax g; SA ¼ fEI A ; EI TA g
where EI y , EI cr = stiffness of the yielding and cracking
branches in the hysteric model. ð40Þ

© ASCE 04018028-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


b. M A φA > 0 As illustrated in Steps 1–3, the transformation point coefficients
are calculated from the corresponding end (A, C, and B), regarded as
γ UA ≥ γ Amax → X A ¼ fγ Amax g; SA ¼ fEI A g ð41Þ an origin; in the final collection, all coefficients γ and β (collection
α) should be calculated from end A. After adjusting coefficients γ
β Amax ≤ γ UA < γ Amax → X A ¼ fγ UA ; γ Amax g; and β, collection S is rearranged according to altered coefficients γ
and β. Note that, for each half of the member, the middle part
SA ¼ fEI A ; EI crA g ð42Þ
remains elastic. The first and second half collections (αfh ; Sfh and
αsh ; Ssh ) are assembled to generate the final collection
γ UA < β AMax → X A ¼ fγ UA ; β AMax ; γ AMax g;
SA ¼ fEI A ; EI yA ; EI crA g ð43Þ α ¼ fαfh ; αsh g; S ¼ fSfh ; Ssh g ð45Þ

where EI A = current stiffness of end A based on the hysteric


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The proposed methodology for each member is summarized as


model for unloading and reloading; and EI TA = transition
follows:
stiffness that will be defined in Step 3.
1. In each step of analysis, based on the end shear forces and flex-
3. If the state of end A is transition to vertex, then the collections α
ural moments (V A ; V B and M A ; M B ) calculated in the previous
and S are
step, the moment of C is obtained using Eq. (27).
αA ¼ fγ AMax g; SA ¼ fEI TA g ð44Þ 2. The member is subdivided into parts (collection α) having uni-
form stiffness (collection S) based on the states of the moments
EI TA = current stiffness of point A when passing to vertex. (M A , M B , and M C ) as explained in the section “Determination
Note that Steps 1–3 are same for point C in the first half and of Transformation Points and Flexibility of Each Part.”
points C and B in the second half (index A in equations are replaced 3. The stiffness matrix of the member is acquired by replacing the
by C or B). The mentioned steps are summarized in Fig. 4. components of the collections using (α; S) in Eqs. (13)–(16).

Fig. 4. Process for determining the transformation points

© ASCE 04018028-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


4. The effects of applied gravity loading on end moments and failing to separate the cracked and yielded lengths could result in
shear forces changes after replacing the components of the col- crucial error.
lections (α; S) in Eqs. (17)–(26). The deformation and rotation The methodology for column elements is similar to that for
related to gravity loading alter according to the forces and beam elements. For column elements, the hysteric model is only
moments obtained in this step. evaluated at the two ends of the element because of the absence
The methodology has the following advantages: of a perpendicular gravity load on their axes (Points A and B).
1. The stiffness matrix is based on one element for each member.
2. The moment diagram of the beam members used to determine
the transformation points is considered bilinear, as opposed Static Condensation and Timoshenko Beam
to the linear, uniform, and power plasticity models, which as- Element
sume a linear moment diagram between the two ends of the
members. The static-condensation approach (S-C) is also used in the present
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3. Although the hysteric model is only evaluated at three points, study (Guyan 1965). For each member described in the section
the methodology distributes plasticity along the length of the “Determination of Transformation Points and Flexibility of Each
member. Part,” two kinds of nodes are taken into account. The interior nodes
4. Unlike other spread plasticity models, the yielded and cracked are considered as slaves and the exterior nodes as masters. If the
portions are separated. Consider the trilinear moment-curvature internal degrees of freedom are included in the assembled stiffness
for a RC member as depicted in Fig. 5(a). When a member matrix of the entire structure, it will be large in size and bandwidth.
experiences inelastic deformation, the state of the current mo- This procedure has been applied in some studies, such as in Jelenić
ment, for example, in end A (MA ), will be on Branch 2 or 3 of and Crisfield (1996) and He and Zhong (2012). Should the number
the trilinear moment-curvature. In Figs. 5(b–d), the assumed of subdivided parts be m, there will be 2m þ 2° of freedom that
flexibility distribution of the uniform flexibility model (UFM; consist of four masters and 2m − 2 slaves
dashed red lines), LFM (dotted blue lines), and (PSP model;  e   e   e 
K mm K ems dm Fm
black lines) are described. K ¼
e
e e
; d ¼
e
e
; F ¼
e

As illustrated in Fig. 5(b), when the moment is on Branch 2, K sm K ss ds Fes


the flexibility distribution in the UFM and PSP models are identical
to the precise distribution from the trilinear moment curvature K ec × dem ¼ Fec Where K ec ¼ K emm − K ems ½K ess −1 K esm and
[Fig. 5(a)]. LFM considers the flexibility to be lower than the pre- Fec ¼ −K ems ½K ess −1 Fes þ Fem des ¼ ½K ess −1 ½Fes − K esm dem  ð46Þ
cise distribution. For the moment on Branch 3 [Figs. 5(c and d)],
both the UFM and LFM incorrectly predict the flexibility distribu- where K e = element stiffness matrix; de = element displacement
tion, whereas the PSP model considers the flexibility distribution vector and consists of the displacement and rotation of the master
accurately. The approximation of UFM is salient. In the LFM, flex- and slave nodes (dem and des , respectively); Fe = element force vec-
ibility can be higher or lower than the precise distribution; therefore, tor and includes the shear force and bending moment of the master

Fig. 5. Comparing UFM, LFM and PSP in the inelastic zones for Section A: (a) trilinear moment-curvature curve; (b) flexibility distribution for
Branch 2 of trilinear moment curvature curve; (c and d) flexibility distribution for Branch 3 of trilinear moment-curvature curve

© ASCE 04018028-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


where ν EB and ν shear are the displacement portions corresponding
to the bending of the Euler-Bernoulli beam and shearing in TBT,
respectively.
The analyzed beam is discretized using one element for each
case. The results are depicted in Fig. 7(a) (Medic et al. 2013).
The same analysis is carried out in this study. The outcomes are
Fig. 6. Geometric and material properties with loading (adapted from depicted in Fig. 7(b). It is evident that the element having linear
Engineering Structures, Vol. 50, Senad Medić, Samir Dolarević, and shape functions (equal–order interpolation) does not produce rea-
Adnan Ibrahimbegovic, “Beam model refinement and reduction,” sonable results for slenderness ratios that are higher than 0.5. The
158–169, © 2013, with permission from Elsevier) convenient beam element (Euler-Bernoulli) shows good accuracy
for shallow beams with slenderness ratios of less than 4 because
this element does not consider shear deformation. Although a four-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

field element enhances the outcomes for deep beams as opposed to


nodes and slave nodes (Fem and Fes , respectively); K ec = condensed the two previously mentioned elements, the outcomes have about
element stiffness matrix; and Fec = condensed force vector. 20% error. The PSP model for all values of slenderness shows
Because the goal was to evaluate the accuracy of the formula- excellent agreement with exact and linked element results.
tions in the section “Extended Formulation,” which consist of shear
deformation, the formulation used to obtain the stiffness matrix
should be based on Timoshenko beam theory (TBT). The elements Nonlinear Analysis
acquired based on this theory present reliable outcomes for a deep
beam, for which shear deformation is significant because of shear- The actual behavior of a building frame can vary between fully
locking phenomenon, but the performance of these elements is very elastic and collapse states. Among different kinds of analyses,
weak for shallow beams. Tang et al. (2015) studied membrane lock- pushover analysis can describe the entire behavior of frames. In
ing and shear locking. To tackle this problem, they used force equi- pushover analysis, a predefined pattern of lateral loading is applied
librium equations to derive the displacement function. Different incrementally along the height of a structure until a predefined tar-
approaches have been suggested to address this drawback, such get displacement is reached or a plastic collapse mechanism takes
as selective reduced integration, enhanced displacement method, place. In the present study, pushover analysis is used to assess the
mixed beam elements in TBT, four-field beam element in TBT, nonlinear behavior of the structures. In the analyses, unlike other
and linked interpolation beam elements in TBT (Bhatti 2006). studies, such as Habibi and Moharrami (2010), it is assumed that
The linked beam element is the most useful Timoshenko beam the effects of applied gravity loading are altered in each step of
element. Unlike other approaches, the relation of variables that are analysis because of changing plasticity of members during analy-
physically dependent are taken into account (Bhatti 2006). To assess sis; therefore, the effect of gravity loading on the structure are up-
shear locking in the PSP formulation, a two-dimensional (2D) beam dated at each step and the lateral loads are increased monotonically.
of variable length clamped at one end and free at the other is con- The assumptions of this study are summarized as follows:
sidered (Fig. 6). This model has been assessed by Medic et al. 1. The effects of gravity loads are updated at each step using
(2013), who noted the exact vertical displacement of the cantilever Eqs. (19), (20), (25), and (26) because the plasticity of members
tip as calculated in the following equation: changes during analysis (displacement and rotation produced as
the result of changes in gravity loading).
2. The Newton-Raphson method is applied for nonlinear analysis
Fl3 Fl of structures; therefore, the assumptions and limitations of this
ν exact ¼ ν EB þ ν shear ¼ þ ð47Þ
3EI kGA method are used in the current study.
Relative deflection v/v(exact)

Euler-Bernoulli
Equal-order
Four field
Proposed spread model
Linked
Exact

(a) (b) Slenderness ratio (l/h)

Fig. 7. Locking problem for different Timoshenko beam formulations in (a) ref. (reprinted from Engineering Structures, Vol. 50, Senad Medić, Samir
Dolarević, and Adnan Ibrahimbegovic, “Beam model refinement and reduction,” 158–169, © 2013, with permission from Elsevier); (b) present study

© ASCE 04018028-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


3. The trilinear moment-curvature relation is used to express the Numerical Examples
nonlinear behavior of RC sections. The moment-curvature para-
meters are computed-based on relations presented by Habibi Seven examples were considered. The first two examples were
and Moharrami (2010). Some limitations are applied for the var- simply-supported beams selected from Au and Bai (2007). The
ious states of behavior of RC elements. These states are divided third was a circular column as tested by Stone and Cheok (1989).
based on their cracked and uncracked section properties and de- The other examples were RC moment-resistant frames. Pushover
pend on yielding and ultimate behavior. The moment-curvature analysis was carried out on all frames by applying monotonically
relation is defined based on the cross-sectional properties and increasing lateral loading along with constant gravity loading. The
stress-strain properties for concrete and steel, respectively. Im- fourth example was an asymmetric three-story, two-bay planar RC
portant parameters affecting the relation are the modulus of rup- frame selected from Habibi (2008), and the fifth was a ten-story,
ture of concrete, the compressive strength of concrete, the yield two-bay RC moment-resistant frame (Habibi and Moharrami
strength of steel, the modulus of elasticity of concrete, the mod- 2010).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ulus of elasticity of steel, the ultimate strain of concrete, the The LFM and the proposed method were used to evaluate the
yield strain of steel, the overall height of the section, the cover accuracy of the PSP model. Analysis in IDARC 2D was performed
to steel centroid, the width of the section, the distance from the several times to consider the linear plasticity model with different
neutral axis of the section to the extreme fiber in tension, and numbers of beam elements (each beam is subdivided into elements)
the moment of inertia of the section [More details have been to account for the effect of gravity loading. The sixth example was a
presented in Habibi and Moharrami (2010)]. The proposed three-story, three-bay RC moment-resistant frame. This frame was
method is an approximation because it contains limitations such analyzed using OpenSees with different numbers of integration
as assumptions regarding the moment-curvature gradient and points and then by the PSP model. The last example was a 1:5 scale
the constitutive relationship. of a three-story frame constructed according to the Korean practice
4. The lateral load pattern is assumed to be proportional of non-seismic detailing (Lee and Woo 2002). For this example,
to the story inertial forces consistent with the story shear the outcomes from shaking table testing (Lee and Woo 2002) and
distribution. the PSP model were compared.
5. The failure considered is the state in which the stiffness of the
structure is very low, when displacement increases without in-
creasing the load. Evaluating the postcollapse response of RC Examples 1 and 2
frames and considering large displacement effects are beyond The two simply-supported test beams loaded at mid-span consid-
the goals of this study. ered in this study were studied by Au and Bai (2007) and Zhao et al.
The stiffness matrix related to the moments and rotations at the (2012). The dimensions of the beams are shown in Table 1. For
ends of the element is obtained as explained in the section “Ex- both beams, the concrete was assumed to have a cylinder strength
tended Formulation.” Shear and axial components are added to of 52 MPa, a modulus of rupture of 4.5 MPa, and a modulus of
the tangent stiffness matrix of each element as explained by Habibi elasticity of 27,000 MPa. The steel had a yield strength of
and Moharrami (2010). The geometric stiffness matrix is a function 488 MPa and a modulus of elasticity of 200,000 MPa. More details
of axial force of the element and attempts to reduce the stiffness of about the beams can be found in Au and Bai (2007), who carried
the element under consideration. This matrix is the same as that out experimental and 2D finite element analyses of these RC beams
used by Habibi and Moharrami (2010). under monotonic loading. Finite element analysis was carried out
by Zhao et al. (2012).
In the present study, nonlinear analysis of these beams was
Table 1. Dimension of Beams done using the PSP formulation. By symmetry, the half of the
beam was considered. The moment-curvature properties of the
Tension
L L0 bw h d0 d steel Compression beams were calculated as shown in the section “Nonlinear Analy-
Beam (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) db × Nos steel db× Nos sis” and the cracked and yielded lengths were computed using
Eqs. (28) and (29). The stiffness matrix was calculated using
B1 3,000 2,600 200 300 30 260 16 × 3 12 × 2
Eqs. (13)–(16). Fig. 8 compares the load-deflection responses
B2 3,000 2,600 200 300 30 250 25 × 2 12 × 2
of the aforementioned. Good compliance was observed between

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Load versus displacement curves of (a) Beam B1; (b) Beam B2

© ASCE 04018028-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


Fig. 9. Configuration of full-scale bridge (reprinted from Reinhorn
et al. 2009, with permission) (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm, 1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the PSP results and the other results. For all load-deflection
curves, fully elastic, cracked, and yielded sections were observed.
Comparison of PSP and experimental testing shows that the PSP Fig. 11. Three-story frame
model underestimated the inelastic response.

Example 3 element, there were no distributed perpendicular forces along the


member; the failure to separate the yielded and cracked lengths
The third example was a circular column that was tested at the
created error in the LFM results. In the PSP model, these lengths
laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
were separated.
(Stone and Cheok 1989). This column represents a typical bridge
pier designed in accordance with Caltrans specifications (Caltrans
1988). The column was tested by applying both axial and lateral Example 4
loading. The characteristics of this column are depicted in Fig. 9. The fourth example evaluated (Fig. 11) had a width and height of
The concrete had a compressive strength of 35.85 MPa and a modu- 300 mm for all beams and columns, and the reinforcement beam at
lus of elasticity of 28.34 GPa (4,110 ksi). The steel used for lon- the bottom and top were 763 mm2 . Reinforcement of all columns on
gitudinal reinforcement had a yield strength of 475.05 MPa and each face was 763 mm2 . The concrete was assumed to have a cyl-
modulus of elasticity of 189.18 GPa. The axial load applied to inder strength of 20 MPa and modulus of rupture of 2.82 MPa, a
the specimen was 4,450 kN. More details have been presented modulus of elasticity of 22,360 MPa, a strain of 0.002 at maximum
in Reinhorn et al. (2009). strength, and an ultimate strain of 0.003. The steel had a yield
The vertex-oriented hysteric model was used for the column, and strength of 300 MPa and a modulus of elasticity of 200,000 MPa.
this pier was tested using a displacement control quasi-static load- A uniformly distributed gravity load of 20 kN=m was applied to
ing history. The experimental outcomes are shown in Fig. 10(a). the beams of each story. The reinforcements had a cover-to-steel
This column was analyzed by applying the PSP model and results centroid of 50 mm.
were compared with those of the LFM [Fig. 10(b)]. The results of Fig. 11 shows the numbering of the elements in each story from
the PSP model were in good agreement with the experimental out- left to right. The name of each member consists of two indexes (such
comes. It appears that increasing displacement increased the gap as Cij for columns and Bij for beams). The former denotes the story
between the PSP model and the LFM. The decrease in strength re- of the member and the latter denotes its location on each story. As
sults of the PSP model was more compatible with the experimental mentioned, the LFM was used to analyze this example several times.
results than of those from the LFM model. Although for the column First, each beam was considered as one part (LFM-1P). Next, to

300
LFM
PSP
200
Base shear (kips)

100

0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-100

-200

-300
(a) (b) Displacement (in)

Fig. 10. Cyclic response of the bridge pier: (a) experimental results (reprinted from Reinhorn et al. 2009, with permission); (b) the PSP model and
LFM outcomes (1 in: ¼ 25.4 mm, 1 kip ¼ 4.45 kN)

© ASCE 04018028-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


Fig. 12 shows that the outcomes of the PSP and S-C models
were compatible. The main advantage of the PSP model was the
use of one element for each member, which had a significant effect
on the computational time of analysis. The results for LFM-1P were
Base shear cofficient

notably different from the others because of the shortcoming re-


LFM-15-20P
garding consideration of the effect of gravity loading. Fig. 13
LFM-10P shows that increasing the number of parts in the beam elements
LFM-5P gradually brought the outcomes closer to those of the PSP model.
LFM-2P The results for 15-20P for the PSP and S-C models showed good
LFM-1P agreement.
PSP
Table 2 summarizes the flexibility distribution of beams at an
S-C
overall drift of 1.5% for the PSP and 15-20P models. In this table,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

E, Cr, and Y are the elastic, cracked, and yielded parts, respectively
Overall drift (%)
(between two successive transportation points). The transportation
Fig. 12. Capacity curves of the three-story frame points in Table 2 were calculated from the left side and all these
lengths were divided to the length of the members. It is clear that
the results of the PSP model were compatible with those for 15-20P.
Table 3 lists the Park and Ang damage index (overall damage
capture the effect of gravity loading, each beam was divided into 2, index) for the LFM and PSP models for overall drifts of 0.5, 1, and
5, and 10 parts. In the last test, the beams of the left side of the frame 1.86%. The percentage of ultimate overall drift (in failure state) for
(B11 , B21 , and B31 ) were divided into 15 parts and the right side each analysis is also presented in Table 3. As seen, the Park and
(B12 , B22 , and B32 ) into 20 parts (LFM-2P, LFM-5P, LFM-10P, Ang damage index increased as the number of parts increased. This
LFM-15-20P, respectively). After analysis, the frame was analyzed increase was considerable for each drift. The Park and Ang damage
using the PSP model and the S-C approach. In the S-C, the linked index calibrated by Reinhorn et al. (2009) shows a different in-
beam element was used for each part of the element as in the section terpretation of the computed values. The damage indexes and the
“Determination the Transformation Points and Flexibility of Each percentage of ultimate overall drift for LFM-15-20P and the PSP
Part.” The S-C approach was used to derive the stiffness matrix model were compatible.
of each element. The capacity curves from these analyses are shown In nonlinear analysis, the stiffness of elements changes during
in Fig. 12 and the interstory drift to overall drift of 0.5, 1, and 1.86% analysis. Although the end moments for beam-column elements are
are shown in Fig. 13. fixed for elastic behavior, they change for inelastic behavior; thus,
Base shear cofficient

Story level

LFM-15-20P LFM-1P
LFM-10P LFM-10P
LFM-5P LFM-15-20P
LFM-2P LFM-5P
LFM-1P LFM-2P
PSP S-C
S-C PSP

Overall drift (%) (b) Interstory drift ratio


Story level
Story level

LFM-1P LFM-1P
LFM-10P LFM-10P
LFM-15-20P LFM-15-20P
LFM-5P LFM-5P
LFM-2P LFM-2P
S-C S-C
PSP PSP

(a) Interstory drift ratio (c) Interstory drift ratio

Fig. 13. Interstory drift ratio of Example 3 in (a) overall drift 0.5%; (b) overall drift 1%; (c) overall drift 1.86%

© ASCE 04018028-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


Table 2. Flexibility State of Beams at Drift 1.5%
Current state
Model Element Transportation points of failure
PSP B11 0.14,0.4,0.73,0.91 Y,Cr,E,Cr,Y
B12 0.51,0.86,94 Cr,E,Cr,Y
B21 0.1,0.37,0.76,0.95 Y,Cr,E,Cr,Y
B22 0.55,0.84,0.97 Cr,E,Cr,Y
B31 0.37,0.76,0.93 Cr,E,Cr,Y
B32 0.42,0.85,0.99 Cr,E,Cr,Y
15-20P B11 0.16,0.36,0.76,0.9 Y,Cr,E,Cr,Y
B12 0.57,0.87,0.92 Cr,E,Cr,Y
B21 0.1,0.37,0.76,0.9 Y,Cr,E,Cr,Y
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B22 0.08,0.13,0.57,0.87,0.92 Cr,E,Cr,E,Cr,Y


B31 0.3,0.76,0.9 Cr,E,Cr,Y
B32 0.08,0.37,0.47,0.87,0.97 Cr,E,Cr,E,Cr,Y

Table 3. Park and Ang Damage Index for Three-Story, Two-Bay Frame
Analysis
Drift LFM-1P LFM-2P LFM-5P LFM-10P LFM-15-20P PSP
0.5% 0.02 0.054 0.113 0.168 0.301 0.26
1% 0.051 0.096 0.182 0.357 0.574 0.5
1.86% 0.103 0.179 0.322 0.564 0.924 0.84 Fig. 15. Ten-story RC frame (adapted from Finite Elements in Analysis
Ultimate 9 7.41 5.5 3.13 1.88 2.2 and Design, Vol. 46, AliReza Habibi and Hamid Moarrami, “Nonlinear
overall drift sensitivity analysis of reinforced concrete frames,” 571–584, © 2010,
ratio (%) with permission from Elsevier)

The concrete was assumed to have a cylinder strength of 30 MPa,


a modulus of rupture of 3.45 MPa, a modulus of elasticity of
27,400 MPa, a strain of 0.002 at maximum strength, and an ulti-
mate strain of 0.004. The steel had a yield strength of 300 MPa
and a modulus of elasticity of 200,000 MPa.
The distributed gravity load imposed on the beams was assumed
to be 35 kN=m. As in the third example, LFM was used to analyze
this example (LFM-1P, LFM-2P, LFM-5P, and LFM-10P). The
suggested formulation was used to perform pushover analysis.
The results are shown in Fig. 16(a). The floor displacement for the
overall drift of 1.5% is shown in Fig. 16(b).
Fig. 16(a) shows that the results of the LFM converged with
those of the PSP model when a greater number of elements for each
member was used. Comparison of LFM-1P and the PSP model
shows that the gap between two curves increased as the inelastic
Fig. 14. Fixed end moment of B12 over the analysis considering elastic deformation increased. The results for LFM-5P are closer to those
and inelastic behavior for PSP than are those for the LFM-1P in the inelastic range. LFM-
10P shows the best compatibility with the PSP model. Fig. 16(b)
shows that the results of LFM-1P is noticeably different from those
of the PSP model and LFM-10P. This contrast demonstrates the
the fixed end moments should change during nonlinear analysis, just shortcomings of this model for considering gravity loading and the
as do responses such as drift and rotation. Fig. 14 evaluates the in- failure to separate the cracked and yielded lengths.
fluence of the flexibility distribution along the member for fixed end
moments by comparing the change in value of the left fixed end
moment of B12 for inelastic behavior [Eq. (20)] with the constant Example 6
value for the fixed end moment for elastic behavior. As shown, the The sixth example was a three-story, three-bay RC moment-
fixed end moment of B12 depended on the flexibility distribution resistant frame (Fig. 17). The concrete was assumed to have cyl-
along the member during analysis. It is clear that the effects of non- inder strengths of 28 and 24 MPa, a strain of 0.0022 and 0.002 at
uniform flexibility over the length of the beam are inevitable. maximum strength, and an ultimate strain of 0.007 and 0.0035 in
the core and cover, respectively. The steel had a yield strength of
400 MPa and a modulus of elasticity of 200,000 MPa. A uniformly
Example 5
distributed gravity load of 14 kN=m was applied to the beam. It
The fifth example was for the ten-story, two-bay RC moment- was assumed that the columns and beams had rectangular cross
resistant frame shown in Fig. 15 (Habibi and Moharrami 2010). sections as detailed in Table 4. To evaluate the accuracy of the PSP

© ASCE 04018028-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


LFM-1P PSP
LFM-2P LFM-10P
LFM-5P LFM-1P
LFM-10P
Base shear cofficient

PSP

Story level
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Overall drift (%) (b) Displacement (m)

Fig. 16. (a) Outcomes of PSP with LFM-1P, LFM-2P, LFM-5P, and LFM-10P; (b) story displacements of PSP with LFM-1P and LFM-10P at overall
drift 1.5%

methodology, pushover analysis was carried out once using Open-


Sees (fiber-based analysis) and again with PSP. To model structural
elements in OpenSees, a nonlinear beam-column element with dif-
ferent numbers of integration points was used. Integration along the
element was based on the Gauss-Lobatto quadrature rule. The ma-
terials used were Concrete02 and Steel02. Each cross section was
divided into a core and cover that were subdivided into small fibers.
The number of element integration sections were 3, 4, 7, and 10
(denoted as 3-NP, 4-NP, 7-NP, and 10-NP, respectively).
The moment-curvature properties of the elements in PSP analy-
sis were the same as those obtained from OpenSees (Fig. 18). The
outcomes of these analyses are shown in Fig. 19. As shown, the
Fig. 17. Three-story RC frame outcomes of the PSP model and OpenSees with ten element inte-
gration sections are compatible. The gap between the curves for
3-NP, 4-NP, 7-NP, and 10-NP shows the effect of the number of
element integration sections on the results. The noise in the pre-
dicted strength for 7-NP results from numerical error. In fact,
Table 4. Cross Section Properties of Three-Story RC Frame numerical integration error that can be reduced by increasing the
Dimension Reinforcement number of integration points or by element subdivision was the
(mm) (mm2 ) only error in these elements because exact force interpolation func-
Element type Width Height Bottom Top
tions were used (Neuenhofer and Filippou 1997).
In distributed plastic models using the flexibility-based finite
All beams 400 400 1,200 1,800 element theory, the accuracy of the inelastic response was improved
Edge columns 400 400 2,500 2,500 by increasing the number of integration points or by using high-
Middle columns 450 450 2,900 2,900
performance integration rules for the fixed inelastic zone lengths

Edge columns
Middle columns
Moment (kN.m)
Moment (kN.m)

(a) Curvature (1/m) (b) Curvature (1/m)

Fig. 18. Moment-curvature curves of (a) columns; (b) beams

© ASCE 04018028-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


Experiment
Push-II
PSP
Base shear cofficient

Base shear (kN)


10-NP
7-NP
4-NP
3-NP
PSP
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Overall drift (%) Roof drift (mm)

Fig. 19. Capacity curves of the three-story, three-bay frame Fig. 21. Base shear versus roof drift in test and analyses

relations. Pushover analysis of the frame was carried out using the
PSP model and the results are compared with experimental and
Push-II results in Fig. 21.
It is evident that the accuracy of the PSP model was more ap-
propriate than that of IDARC 2D (Push-II). There was a noticeable
difference in the primary stiffness of the experimental test with the
others. As demonstrated in the shaking table in Lee and Woo
(2002), a pushover test was carried out after the earthquake sim-
ulation tests. The primary stiffness of the experimental test sug-
gested that stiffness degradation had occurred as a result of the
damage implemented during the previous earthquake simulation
tests; therefore, it is evident that the primary stiffness of the exper-
imental test was lower than for the analytical ones that did not ex-
Fig. 20. Base shear versus roof drift in tests and analysis (reprinted perience earthquakes.
from Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, Han-Seon Lee and Sung-Woo
Woo, “Seismic performance of a 3-story RC frame in a low-seismicity
region,” 719–734, © 2002, with permission from Elsevier) Conclusion
A new plasticity model for curvature distribution was developed
considering the effects of both lateral and gravity loading on RC
(Roh et al. 2012). Comparison of the results shows that increasing frames. In the suggested model, each member was considered to be
the number of element integration sections caused the results of a single member without subdivision into several elements. Flexu-
OpenSees to converge with those of the PSP model. Note ral and shear flexibility were included in the proposed model.
that the response is considered up to maximum loading and no Shear-locking phenomenon was evaluated, and the outcomes illus-
postpeak response was considered in this analysis (see section trated that the extended formulation was devoid of this phenome-
“Nonlinear Analysis”). non. To assess the proposed model, static condensation procedure
was applied in which each member was divided into elements hav-
ing uniform flexibility and linked interpolation. Comparison of the
Example 7 outcomes of these two approaches confirmed the accuracy of the
The last example was the 1:5 scale of a three-story frame con- PSP formulation and demonstrated the benefits of the developed
structed according to the Korean practice of non-seismic detailing formulation without dividing the members into elements.
(Lee and Woo 2002). Because of limitations in the capacity of the To evaluate the developed plasticity model, seven examples
shaking table used, Lee and Woo (2002) performed pushover test- were presented. In the first three examples, the results were com-
ing to observe the ultimate capacity of the structure after earthquake pared with those from experimental and finite element models of
simulation tests. previous studies and a desirable approximation was achieved for
Lee and Woo (2002) analyzed this frame using IDARC 2D and the suggested model. In the fourth to sixth examples, it was ob-
compared the outcomes with their experimental results in Fig. 20. served that by increasing the number of elements or element inte-
In their study, to consider the increase in the contribution of slabs gration sections, which led to a lower error of approximation for the
on the ultimate strength of the structure, two types of sections were curvature distribution along the member, the outcomes of the linear
considered to model T beams. The effective width of a T beam was flexibility and fiber-based models converged with those of the pro-
410 mm (PUSH-I) and 840 mm (PUSH-II). In the present study, the posed plasticity model. In the last example, pushover analysis was
frame was modeled using an effective width of the T beam of carried out at a 1:5 scale on a three-story frame constructed accord-
840 mm. To consider precise conformity between the Lee and ing to the Korean practice of non-seismic detailing. Comparison of
Woo (2002) model and the present one, RESPONSE (Felber 1990) the results of the experimental study with those of the proposed
was used to obtain the envelope curve for the moment-curvature method verified the accuracy of the proposed model.

© ASCE 04018028-15 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


References Inel, M., and Ozmen, H. B. (2006). “Effects of plastic hinge properties
in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete buildings.” Eng. Struct.,
Al-Haddad, M. S., and Wight, J. S. (1988). “Relocating beam plastic hing- 28(11), 1494–1502.
ing zones for earthquake resistant design of reinforced concrete build- Izadpanah, M., and Habibi, A. (2015). “Evaluating the spread plasticity
ings.” Struct. J., 85(2), 123–133. model of IDARC for inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete frames.”
Alva, G. M. S., and de Cresce El, A. L. H. (2010). “Application of lumped Struct. Eng. Mech., 56(2), 169–188.
dissipation model in nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete struc- Jelenić, G., and Crisfield, M. A. (1996). “Non-linear ‘master-slave’ relation-
tures.” Eng. Struct., 32(4), 974–981. ships for joints in 3-D beams with large rotations.” Comput. Methods
Amorim, D. L. D. F., Proença, S. P., and Flórez-López, J. (2013). “A model Appl. Mech. Eng., 135(3–4), 211–228.
of fracture in reinforced concrete arches based on lumped damage Kim, S. P., and Kurama, Y. C. (2008). “An alternative pushover analysis
mechanics.” Int. J. Solids Struct., 50(24), 4070–4079. procedure to estimate seismic displacement demands.” Eng. Struct.,
Anderson, J. C., and Townsend, W. H. (1977). “Models for RC frames with 30(12), 3793–3807.
degrading stiffness.” J. Struct. Div., 103(12), 2361–2376. Kucukler, M., Gardner, L., and Macorini, L. (2014). “A stiffness reduction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Aoyama, H., and Sugano, T. (1968). “A generalized inelastic analysis of method for the in-plane design of structural steel elements.” Eng.
reinforced concrete structures based on the tests of members.” Recent Struct., 73, 72–84.
Researches of Structural Mechanics-Contributions in Honor of the Kunnath, S. K., and Reinhorn, A. M. (1989). Inelastic three-dimensional
60-th Birthday of Prof. Y. Tsuboi, Uno Shoten, Tokyo. response analysis of reinforced concrete building structures
Astroza, R., Ebrahimian, H., and Conte, J. P. (2015). “Material parameter (IDARC-3D), National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
identification in distributed plasticity FE models of frame-type struc- Buffalo, NY.
tures using nonlinear stochastic filtering.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061 Lee, C. L., and Filippou, F. C. (2009). “Efficient beam-column element
/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000851, 04014149. with variable inelastic end zones.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST
Au, F. T. K., and Bai, Z. Z. (2007). “Two-dimensional nonlinear finite .1943-541X.0000064, 1310–1319.
element analysis of monotonically and non-reversed cyclically loaded Lee, H. S., and Woo, S. W. (2002). “Seismic performance of a 3-story RC
RC beams.” Eng. Struct., 29(11), 2921–2934. frame in a low-seismicity region.” Eng. Struct., 24(6), 719–734.
Babazadeh, A., Burgueño, R., and Silva, P. F. (2016). “Evaluation of Mahin, S. A., and Bertero, V. V. (1976). “Problems in establishing and
the critical plastic region length in slender reinforced concrete bridge predicting ductility in aseismic design.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Earth-
columns.” Eng. Struct., 125, 280–293. quake Structural Engineering, Univ. of Missouri, Rolla, MO,
Berry, M. P., Lehman, D. E., and Lowes, L. N. (2008). “Lumped-plasticity 613–628.
models for performance simulation of bridge columns.” ACI Struct. J., Mazza, F. (2014). “A distributed plasticity model to simulate the biaxial
105(3), 270. behaviour in the nonlinear analysis of spatial framed structures.”
Comput. Struct., 135, 141–154.
Bhatti, M. A. (2006). Advanced topics in finite element analysis of structures:
Medić, S., Dolarević, S., and Ibrahimbegovic, A. (2013). “Beam model
With Mathematica and MATLAB computations, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
refinement and reduction.” Eng. Struct., 50, 158–169.
Birely, A. C., Lowes, L. N., and Lehman, D. E. (2012). “A model for the
Mergos, P. E., and Kappos, A. J. (2012). “A gradual spread inelasticity
practical nonlinear analysis of reinforced-concrete frames including
model for R/C beam-columns, accounting for flexure, shear and anchor-
joint flexibility.” Eng. Struct., 34, 455–465.
age slip.” Eng. Struct., 44, 94–106.
Caltrans. (1988). “Bridge design specifications.” Sacramento, CA.
Meyer, C., Roufaiel, M. S., and Arzoumanidis, S. G. (1983). “Analysis of
Clough, R. W., and Johnston, R. B. (1966). Effect of stiffness degradation
damaged concrete frames for cyclic loads.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
on earthquake ductility requirements, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ.
Dyn., 11(2), 207–228.
of California, Berkeley, CA.
Neuenhofer, A., and Filippou, F. C. (1997). “Evaluation of nonlinear frame
Dides, M. A., and De la Llera, J. C. (2005). “A comparative study of con- finite-element models.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
centrated plasticity models in dynamic analysis of building structures.” (1997)123%3A7(958), 958–966.
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 34(8), 1005–1026.
Nguyen, P. C., and Kim, S. E. (2014). “Distributed plasticity approach for
Emori, K., and Schnobrich, W. C. (1981). “Inelastic behavior of concrete time-history analysis of steel frames including nonlinear connections.”
frame-wall structures.” J. Struct. Div., 107(1), 145–164. J. Constr. Steel Res., 100, 36–49.
Felber, A. J. (1990). “RESPONSE: A program to determine the load- OpenSees [Computer software]. PEER, Berkeley, CA.
deformation response of reinforced concrete sections.” Univ. of Otani, S., and Sozen, M. A. (1972). Behavior of multistory reinforced
Toronto, Toronto. concrete frames during earthquakes, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL,
Giberson, M. F. (1967). “The response of nonlinear multi-story structures 551.
subjected to earthquake excitation.” Ph.D. dissertation, California Pan, W. H., Tao, M. X., and Nie, J. G. (2016). “Fiber beam-column element
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. model considering reinforcement anchorage slip in the footing.” Bull.
Guyan, R. J. (1965). “Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices.” AIAA J., Earthquake Eng., 15(3), 991–1018.
3(2), 380. Park, Y. J., Reinhorn, A. M., and Kunnath, S. K. (1987). IDARC: Inelastic
Habibi, A., and Moharrami, H. (2010). “Nonlinear sensitivity analysis of damage analysis of reinforced concrete frame-shear-wall structures,
reinforced concrete frames.” Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 46(7), 571–584. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
Habibi, A. R. (2008). “Optimal seismic performance based design of Powell, G. (1975). “Supplement to computer program DRAIN-2D.”
2D reinforced concrete frames.” Ph.D. thesis, Tarbiat Modarres Univ., DRAIN-2D user’s guide, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Tehran, Iran. Rahai, A. R., and Nafari, S. F. (2013). “A comparison between lumped and
Hajjar, J. F., Molodan, A., and Schiller, P. H. (1998a). “A distributed distributed plasticity approaches in the pushover analysis results of a pc
plasticity model for cyclic analysis of concrete-filled steel tube beam- frame bridge.” Int. J. Civ. Eng., 11(4), 217–225.
columns and composite frames.” Eng. Struct., 20(4–6), 398–412. Reinhorn, A. M., et al. (2009). “IDARC 2D version 7.0: A program
Hajjar, J. F., Schiller, P. H., and Molodan, A. (1998b). “A distributed plas- for the inelastic damage analysis of structures.” MCEER Technical
ticity model for concrete-filled steel tube beam-columns with interlayer Rep. MCEER-09-0006, Univ. at Buffalo—State Univ. of New York,
slip.” Eng. Struct., 20(8), 663–676. Buffalo, NY.
He, R., and Zhong, H. (2012). “Large deflection elasto-plastic analysis of Roh, H., Reinhorn, A. M., and Lee, J. S. (2012). “Power spread plasticity
frames using the weak-form quadrature element method.” Finite Elem. model for inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete structures.” Eng.
Anal. Des., 50, 125–133. Struct., 39, 148–161.
He, Z., Liu, W., Wang, X., and Ye, A. (2016). “Optimal force-based beam- Roufaiel, M. S., and Meyer, C. (1987). “Analytical modeling of hysteretic
column element size for reinforced-concrete piles in bridges.” J. Bridge behavior of R/C frames.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000926, 06016006. (1987)113:3(429), 429–444.

© ASCE 04018028-16 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028


Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L. (2006). “Plastic hinge integration methods Tang, Y. Q., Zhou, Z. H., and Chan, S. L. (2015). “Nonlinear beam-column
for force-based beam-column elements.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061 element under consistent deformation.” Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn., 15(5),
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:2(244), 244–252. 1450068.
Soleimani, D., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1979). “Nonlinear beam Wen, R. K., and Janssen, J. G. (1965). “Dynamic analysis of elasto-inelastic
model for R/C frame analysis.” Electronic computation, ASCE, frames.” Proc., 3rd World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2,
New York, 483–509. Wellington, New Zealand, 713–729.
Stone, W. C., and Cheok, G. S. (1989). “Inelastic behavior of Zhao, X., Wu, Y. F., Leung, A. Y., and Lam, H. F. (2011). “Plastic hinge
full-scale bridge columns subjected to cyclic loading.” No. NIST BSS length in reinforced concrete flexural members.” Procedia Eng., 14,
166, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaitherburg, 1266–1274.
MD. Zhao, X. M., Wu, Y. F., and Leung, A. Y. T. (2012). “Analyses of plastic
Takizawa, H. (1973). “Strong motion response analysis of reinforced con- hinge regions in reinforced concrete beams under monotonic loading.”
crete buildings.” Concr. J. Jpn. Nat. Counc. Concr., 11(2), 10–21. Eng. Struct., 34, 466–482.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE 04018028-17 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2018, 144(5): 04018028