Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Otani-1981 HysteresisModelsForConcreteStructures PDF
Otani-1981 HysteresisModelsForConcreteStructures PDF
SHUNSUKE OTANI
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A4
Received January 10,1979
Revised manuscript accepted March 3,1980
Introduction
Dynamic response of a structure can be caused by different loading conditions such as: (a) earthquake
ground motion; (b) wind pressure; (c) wave action; (d) blast; (e) machine vibration; and (f) traffic movement.
Among these, inelastic response is mainly caused by earthquake motions and accidental blasts. Consequently,
more research on nonlinear structural behaviour has been carried out in relation to earthquake problems. This
paper describes the research development in earthquake engineering.
Note that dynamic problems are different from static one in the following points: (a) inertial force; (b)
damping; (c) strain rate effect; and (d) oscillation (stress reversals). These need to be clarified in order to
analyze a structure under dynamic loading.
Dynamic characteristics up to failure cannot be identified solely through a dynamic test or a real structure
for the following reasons: (a) difficult to understand the behaviour due to complex interactions of various
parameters; (b) expensive to build a structure, as a specimen, for destructive testing; and (c) capacity of
loading devices insufficient to cause failure. Consequently, dynamic tests of real buildings are rather aimed
toward obtaining data (a) to confirm the validity of mathematical modelling techniques for a linearly elastic
structure; and (b) to obtain damping characteristics of different types of structures. A specifically designed
laboratory test becomes inevitable in order to complement the weakness of full scale tests and to study the
effect of individual parameters.
Damping
Any mechanical system possesses some energy-dissipating mechanisms, for example: (a) inelastic hysteretic
energy dissipation; (b) radiation of kinetic energy through foundation; (c) kinetic friction; (d) viscosity in
materials; and (e) aerodynamic effect. Such capacity or energy dissipation is vaguely termed “damping,” and is
most often assumed to be of viscous type because of its mathematical simplicity.
Damping capacity is often determined by the band width of the response curve during a sinusoidal
steady-state test. Figure 1 shows such acceleration response curves for a reinforced concrete building at
different excitation levels(Jennings and Kuroiwa 1968). Note the shift of resonant frequencies and the change
in amplitudes of damping with increase of excitation level despite low response amplitudes.
FIG. 1. Observed acceleration amplitudes from steady-state test (Jennings and Kuroiwa 1968).
Damping capacity is not a unique value of a structure, but it depends on the level of excitation. The
state-of-the-art does not provide a method to determine the damping capacity based on the material properties
and geometrical characteristics of a structure.
Flexural Characteristics
The flexural deformation index (average curvature) is obtained from longitudinal strain measurements at
two levels assuming that a plane section remains plane. This flexural deformation index does not represent the
flexural deformation in a strict sense because a plane section does not remain plane in a region where an
extensive shear deformation occurs. However, the index is useful for understanding flexural deformation
characteristics qualitatively.
A typical moment-flexural deformation index curve obtained from a simply supported beam test (Celebi and
Penzien 1973) is shown.in Fig. 3. Note that the stiffness during loading gradually decreases with load, forming
a fat hysteresis loop, and absorbing a large amount of hysteretic energy. The hysteresis loops remain almost
identical even after several load reversals at the same displacement amplitude beyond yielding. Consequently,
vibration energy can be efficiently dissipated through flexural hysteresis loops without a reduction in
resistance. Many hysteretic models, as discussed later, are currently available to represent the nexural
behaviour.
FIG. 3. Flexural deformation characteristics (Celebi and Penzien 1973).
The increase in axial force decreases the flexural ductility of a reinforced concrete member, but increases
force levels corresponding to (a) tensile cracking of concrete; and (b) tensile yielding of longitudinal
reinforcement.
Shear Characteristics
Similar to the flexural deformation index, a shear deformation index is defined from strain measurements in
the two diagonal directions. Again, this index does not represent the true shear deformation because the
interference of shear and flexure exists.
A typical lateral load-shear deformation index curve (Celebi and Penzien 1973) is shown in Fig. 4. Unlike
what occurs in flexure, the stiffness during loading gradually increases with load, exhibiting a “pinching” in
the curve. The hysteretic energy dissipation is smaller. The hysteresis loop decays with the number of load
reversals, resulting in a smaller resistance at the same peak displacement in each repeated loading cycle.
Although the curve shows a “yielding” phenomenon, it is important to recognize that the shear force of the
member was limited by flexural yielding at the critical section rather than by yielding in shear. This yielding
clearly indicates the interaction of shear and bending.
Bilinear Model
The elastic-perfectly plastic hysteretic model was used by many investigators because the model was simple.
The maximum displacement of an elasto-plastic simple system was found (Veletsos and Newmark 1960) to be
practically the same as that of an elastic system having the same initial period of vibration as long as the period
was longer than 0.5 s.
A finite positive slope was assigned to the postyield stiffness to account for the strain-hardening
characteristic, and the model was called a bilinear model. The bilinear model does not represent the
degradation of loading and unloading stiffnesses with increasing displacement amplitude reversals (Fig. 6),
and the model is not suited for a refined nonlinear analysis of a reinforced concrete structure.
Takeda-Takayanagi Models
The amplitude of the exterior column axial load varies greatly due to the earthquake overturning moment,
and changes its moment-carrying capacity. Takayanagi and Schnobrich (1976) incorporated the effect of axial
force variation in the Takeda model by preparing various backbone curves at different axial load levels (Fig.
10a).
A pinching action and strength decay are inevitable in a short and deep member due to bar slip and
deterioration in shear resistance. Takayanagi and Schnobrich (1976) introduced a pinching action and strength
decay in the Takeda model (Fig. 10b). Whenever a response point was located in the positive rotation-negative
moment range or the negative rotation-positive moment range, the pinching was introduced. After the moment
exceeded the yield level, a strength decay was incorporated. The values of guideline for strength decay and
pinching stiffness were not related to the member geometry and material properties.
The degrading trilinear model can easily include strain-hardening characteristics. The hysteresis energy
dissipation per cycle beyond the initial yielding is proportional to the displacement, and the equivalent viscous
damping factor becomes constant. The fatness of a hysteresis loop is sensitive to the choice of a cracking point.
Comments
Many other hysteresis models have been proposed and used in the past. Figure 12 shows attained ductility
factors of single-degree-of-freedom systems with any of four flexural hysteresis models: bilinear; Clough;
Takeda; and degrading trilinear models. The four models have the same backbone curve except the cracking
point. The four models show similar variations of attained ductility factors with periods, but attained ductility
factors show a wide scatter from one model to another, especially in a short-period range.
Fig. 12. Effect of hysteresis models on earthquake response.
Further research is necessary to study the effect of hysteretic characteristics on earthquake response, and
develop a simple standard hysteresis model for general use.
One-component Model
An elasto-plastic frame structure was analyzed by placing a rigid plastic spring at the location where
yielding is expected. The part of a member between the two rigid plastic springs remains perfectly elastic. All
inelastic deformation is assumed to occur in these springs (Fig. 14). This one-component model was
generalized by Giberson (1967).
A major advantage of the model is that inelastic member-end deformation depends solely on the moment
acting at the end so that any moment-rotation hysteretic model can be assigned to the spring. This fact is also a
weakness of the model because the member-end rotation should be dependent on the curvature distribution
along the member, hence dependent on moments at both member ends. Consider two cases of moment
distribution along a member AB with corresponding curvature distributions as shown in Fig. 15. The inelastic
rotations at the A end are given by the shaded areas. For the same moments at the A end, case II causes larger
inelastic rotation at the A end. Consequently, this simple model does not simulate actual member behaviour.
Furthermore, it is not rational to lump all inelastic deformations at member ends.
FIG. 15. Inelastic rotation of beam: (a) moment; (b) curvature and inelastic rotation.
The stiffness of an inelastic spring is normally defined by assuming an asymmetric moment distribution
along a member with the infection point at midspan. The usage of the initial location of the inflection point in
evaluating spring properties was suggested by Suko and Adams (1971). However, once yielding is developed
at one member end, the moment at the other end must increase to resist a higher stress, moving the inflection
point toward the member centre. At the same time, a large concentrated rotation starts to occur near the critical
section. Despite rational criticisms against this simple model, the performance of the one-component model is
expected to be reasonably good for a relatively low-rise frame structure, in which the inflection point of a
column locates reasonably close to midheight.
A special-purpose computer program, SAKE (Otani 1974), for a regular rectangular reinforced concrete
frame structure and recent modifications (Powell 1975) to general-purpose computer program DRAIN 2D
(Kanaan and Powell 1973) used the one-component model.
Multi-component Model
In an effort to analyze frame structures well into the inelastic range under earthquake excitation, an
interesting model was proposed by Clough et al. (1965). A frame member was divided into two imaginary
parallel elements: an elasto-plastic element to represent a yielding phenomenon, and a fully elastic element to
represent strain-hardening behaviour. When the member-end moment reaches the yield level, a plastic hinge is
placed at the end of the elasto-plastic element. A member-end rotation depends on both member-end moments.
Aoyama and Sugano (1968) adapted the two-component model, creating the multicomponent model (Fig.16),
using four parallel beams to account for flexural cracking, different yield levels at two member ends, and
strain-hardening. The deformation compatibility of the imaginary components is satisfied only at their ends.
The multi-component model appears to have merit; rotation at one end of a member depends on both
member-end moments. In other words, the moment distribution along a member can be approximately
reflected in the analysis. However, the stiffness of the multi-parallel components must be evaluated under a
certain assumed moment distribution. Therefore, the stiffness parameters are valid only under such a moment
distribution, and are bound to be approximate when the moment distribution becomes drastically different.
Giberson (1967) discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the one-component and the two-component
models, and concluded that the one-component model was more versatile than the two-component model
because the two-component model was restricted to the bilinear-type hysteresis characteristics. This
two-component model was used in a general-purpose computer program DRAIN 2D (Kanaan and Powell
1973) for plane structure. The interaction of the bending moment and the axial force was easily incorporated
by simply changing the yield value of the elasto-plastic component depending on the existing axial force.
FIG. 17. Discrete element model: (a) lumped inelastic stiffness; (b) distributed inelastic stiffness.
An alternative method is to divide a member into short segments, each segment with a uniform flexural
rigidity that varies with a stress history of the segment (Fig. 17b). Local concentration of inelastic action can
be easily handled by arranging shorter segments at the location of high concentration of inelastic deformation
(Takayanagi and Schnobrich 1976).
These methods are useful when more accurate results are required, or in the analysis of walls. More
computational effort is required compared with the other simple models.
Summary
Various member models are reviewed, and their advantages and disadvantages are discussed. These models
have been developed specifically for earthquake response. Development of a simple model for simultaneous
gravity and earthquake situations is desired.
FIG. 19. Connected two-cantilever model applied to three-storey frame analysis (Otani and Sozen 1972):
(a) measured; (b) calculated (h=0.0); (c) calculated (h=0.02)
The model structure was subjected to a base motion simulating the El Centro (NS) 1940 accelerogram. The
first-floor displacement was measured to be as much as four times the yield displacement calculated under
static lateral loads. The analytical models with and without viscous damping favourably simulated the
large-amplitude oscillations at 1.0, 2.0, and 5 s from the beginning of the motion (Fig. 19). The analytical
models, however, failed to simulate the medium- and low-amplitude oscillations. Note that the frequencies at
the medium- to low-amplitude oscillations are higher for the analytical model, which indicates that the test
structure was more flexible at low stress levels than the analytical model. In order to reproduce lower
amplitude oscillations of the observed response waveforms, the pinching behaviour needs to be incorporated in
a hysteretic model.
FIG. 20. One-component model applied to three-story frame analysis (Otani, 1976):
(a) measured; (b) calculated (mass proportional damping); (c) calculated (stiffness proportional damping).
Two-storey One-bay Frame
A two-storey one-bay medium-scale frame structure with slabs was tested on the University of California
earthquake simulator (Hidalgo and Clough 1974). The structure was analyzed using the two-component model.
In an effort to improve the correlation, the elastic stiffness of the two parallel components was degraded as a
function of the first-mode-response amplitude history. The observed and the calculated second-floor
displacement waveforms are satisfactorily compared in Fig. 21. However, the parameters controlling stiffness
degradation could not be determined from the theory.
FIG. 21. Two-component model applied to two-story frame analysis (Hidalgo and Clough 1974).
(a) displacement at level 10, in inches (1 in. = 25.4 mm) (b)Acceleration at level 10, g.
FIG. 22. Analysis of ten-story coupled shear wall (Takayanagi and Schnobrich 1976):
The comparison of the measured and calculated displacement and acceleration is excellent, as shown in Fig.
22. It is necessary to include the effects of inelastic axial rigidity of the wall section and pinching action and
strength decay of the connecting beams to reproduce the maximum displacement response and the elongation
of the period. Some stiffness parameters for the walls and connecting beams were defined on the basis of static
tests of connecting beam-wall assemblies.
Summary
The favourable comparison of the measured and the calculated response waveforms encourages the use of
correct analytical and hysteretic models. It is desirable in developing a mathematical model that all parameters
of the proposed model should be evaluated on the basis of the geometry of a structure and the properties of
materials.
Summary
The behaviour of reinforced concrete buildings, especially under earthquake motion, was briefly reviewed.
When a structure can be idealized as plane structures, the current state-of-the-art provides useful and reliable
analytical methods.
However, more research is required to understand the effect of slabs, gravity loads, and biaxial ground
motion on nonlinear behaviour of a three-dimensional reinforced concrete structure.
References
AKTAN, A. E., PECKNOLD, D. A. W., and SOZEN, M. A. 1973. Effect of two-dimensional
earthquake motion on a reinforced concrete column, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, SRS
No. 399.
AOYAMA, H., and SUGANO, T. l968. A generalized inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete
structures based on the tests of members. Recent researches of structural mechanics.
Contribution in Honour of the 60th Birthday of Professor Y. Tsuboi, Uno-Shoten, Tokyo, pp.
15-30.
ARISTIZABAL-OCHOA,J. D., and SOZEN, M. A. 1976. Behaviour of ten-storey reinforced
concrete walls subjected to earthquake motion, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, SRS No.
431.
BERTERO, V. V., and POPOV, E. P. 1977. Seismic behaviour of moment-resisting reinforced
concrete frames. In Reinforced concrete structures in seismic zones, American Concrete
Institute, Special Publication No. 53, pp. 247-292.
CELEBI, M., and PENZIEN, J. l973. Experimental investigation into the seismic behaviour of
critical region of reinforced concret components as influenced by moment and shear,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, EERC 73-4.
CLOUGH, R. W. l966. Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements,
Structural and Materials Research, Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, Report 66-16.
CLOUGH, R. W., BENUSKA, K. L., and WILSON, E. L. l965. Inelastic earthquake response of
tall buildings, Proceedings, 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand,
Vo1. II, Session II, pp. 68-89.
COWELL, W. L. 1965. Dynamic tests of concrete reinforcing steels, U.S. Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA, Technical Report 394.
COWELL, W. L. 1966. Dynamic properties of plain Portland cement concrete, U.S. Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA, Technical Report 447.
FUKADA, Y. 1969. Study on the restoring force characteristics of reinforced concrete buildings
(in Japanese), Proceedings, Kanto District Symposium, Architectural Institute of Japan,
Tokyo, Japan, No. 40.
GIBERSON, M. F. 1967. The response of nonlinear multi-story structures subjected to
earthquake excitation, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, CA, EERL Report.
HIDALGO, P., and CLOUGH, R. W. l974. Earthquake simulator study of a reinforced concrete
frame, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
EERC 74-13.
JENNINGS, P. C., and KUROIWA, J. H. 1968. Vibration and soil-structure interaction tests of a
nine-story reinforced concrete building, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58,
pp. 891-916.
KANAAN, A. E., and POWELL, G. H. l973. DRAIN-2D, A general purpose computer program
for dynamic analysis of inelastic plane structures, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, EERC 73-6.
MAHIN, S. A., and BERTERO, V. V. 1972. Rate of loading effect on uncracked and repaired
reinforced concrete members, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, CA, EERC 72-9.
NIGAM, N. C. 1967. Inelastic interactions in the dynamic response of structures, Ph.D. thesis,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
OTANl, S. 1974. SAKE-A computer program for inelastic response of R/C frames to earthquakes,
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, Structural Research Series, No. 413.
OTANI, S., 1976. Earthquake tests of shear wall-frame structures to failure, Proceedings,
ASCE/EMD (Engineering Mechanics Division) Specialty Conference, Dynamic Response of
Structures, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, Mar. 1976, pp. 298-307.
OTANI, S., CHEUNG, V. W. T., and LAI, S. S. 1979. Behaviour and analytical models of
reinforced concrete columns under biaxial earthquake loads, Proceedings, 3rd Canadian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Montreal, P.Q., ,pp. 1141-1168.
OTANI, S., and SOZEN, M. A. 1972. Behaviour of multi-story reinforced concrete frames during
earthquakes. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, Structural Research Series, No. 392.
PECKNOLD, D. A. W. 1974. Inelastic structural response to 2D ground motion, ASCE Journal
of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 100(EM5), pp. 949-963.
POWELL, G. H. l975. Supplement to computer program DRAIN-2D, Supplement to report,
DRAIN-2D user's guide, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
SUKO, M., and ADAMS, P. F. 197l. Dynamic analysis of mu1tibay multi-story frames, ASCE
Journal of the Structural Division, 97(ST10), pp. 2519-2533.
TAKAYANAGI, T., and SCHNOBRICH, W. C. 1976. Computed behaviour of reinforced concrete
coupled shear walls, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, Structural Research Series, No. 434.
TAKEDA, T., SOZEN, M. A., and NEILSEN, N. N. 1970. Reinforced concrete response to
simulated earthquakes, ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 96(ST12), pp. 2557-2573.
TAKIZAWA, H. 1973. Strong motion response analysis of reinforced concrete buildings (in
Japanese), Concrete Journal, Japan National Council on Concrete, II (2), pp. l0-21.
TAKIZAWA, H., and AOYAMA, H. 1976. Biaxial effects in modelling earthquake response of R/C
structures, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 4, pp. 523-552.
VELETSOS, A. S., and NEWMARK, N. M. l960. Effect of inelastic behaviour on the response of
simple systems to earthquake motions, Proceedings, 2nd World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Vol. II, pp. 895-912.
WEN, R. K., and JANSSEN, J. G. 1965. Dynamic analysis of elasto-inelastic frames,
Proceedings, 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand,
Jan. 1965, Vol. II. pp. 713-729.
ZIEGLER, H. 1959. A modification of Prager's hardening rule. Quarterly of Applied Mechanics,
17(1), pp. 55-65.