Damage Mechanics Modeling of Nonlinear Seismic Behavior

of Concrete Structures
Frédéric Légeron, M.ASCE1; Patrick Paultre, M.ASCE2; and Jacky Mazars, M.ASCE3

Abstract: Performance-based design of structures is becoming the preferred seismic design method. Its use requires special numerical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

programs capable of predicting the performance of structures during a seismic event well into the nonlinear range. Seismic analysis results
obtained from these programs depend on the types of elements and constitutive material laws used. For one type of element used, the
results can be sensitive to the size of the elements. This paper presents a simplified finite-element analysis program based on multilayer
elements and damage mechanics modeling of concrete behavior. A method to identify the various parameters required to define the
behavior of the different materials is presented and some guidance on structural modeling using this type of program is provided. This
program is used to predict the behavior of three different structures: overreinforced normal-strength concrete and high-strength concrete
共HSC兲 beams tested monotonically, HSC columns tested under constant axial load and cyclic flexure, and bridge piers subjected to
earthquake-type loading by the pseudodynamic test method. It is shown that predictions are in excellent agreement with experimental
results.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2005兲131:6共946兲
CE Database subject headings: Damage; Seismic response; Concrete structures; High strength concretes; Confinement; Finite
elements; Localization.

Introduction An accurate prediction of damage resulting from a specific

Performance-based earthquake engineering 共PBEE兲 has been one
of the most important recent advances in seismic engineering
共FEMA 1997兲. Performance-based earthquake engineering in-
volves design of constructions whose performance under various
types of seismic loadings responds to the diverse needs of the
owner, users, and society. In PBEE, performance levels are de-
fined in terms of allowable damage, which are related to eco-
nomic considerations. For certain seismic events, the owner can
select the level of damage he is willing to accept. For private
owners, the decision may be driven entirely by weighing the cost
of repair/reconstruction, the additional cost of seismic resistance,
and probability of occurrence of earthquake. Therefore, the level
of performance is to be based on life-cycle considerations rather
than on construction cost alone. For government and public agen-
cies, additional considerations are taken into account, such as
public safety and definition of priority transportation network and
facilities.
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2RI; formerly, Senior Bridge
Engineer, Jacobs Civil, 70 Wood Ave., Iselin, NJ 08830.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, QC, Canada J1K 2R1. E-mail: patrick.paultre@
usherbrooke.ca
3
Professor, Laboratoire Sols, Solides, Structures, Institut National
Polytechnique de Grenoble, France 38041.
Note. Associate Editor: Khalid M. Mosalam. Discussion open until
November 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on April 23, 2003;
approved on November 19, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 6, June 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN
0733-9445/2005/6-946–955/$25.00.
seismic event is therefore of prime importance for PBEE. Indeed,
inability to do so removes all interest in PBEE. Various tech-
niques are used to predict the performance of a structure under a
seismic event. Nonlinear pushover and time history analysis with
finite-element programs are by far the most common tools for
medium to large structures. However, there is no general agree-
ment in the engineering community on how these programs
should be used or what material constitutive laws, type of ele-
ments, or discretization techniques should be used. The objective
of this paper is to present a method to predict global as well as
local behavior of structures composed of beams and columns
whose behavior is controlled by flexure. The method is based on
damage mechanics of reinforced concrete structures. The material
constitutive laws used in the program are presented. It is shown
that the results depend on element size; guidance on choosing the
element lengths is presented. Three examples of application are
presented in order to illustrate method use and demonstrate this
approach’s value in solving engineering problems.
Constitutive Laws
Concrete
Accurate modeling of concrete under seismic loading requires
accounting for the following phenomena: 共1兲 cracking in tension;
共2兲 confinement effect in compression; and 共3兲 cyclic behavior.
Damage mechanics material constitutive laws are used to repre-
sent these phenomena. Damage mechanics uses damage variables
to quantify the damage state of materials. For the type of struc-
tures of interest here, a unilateral damage law is sufficient, where
only two damage variables are needed to describe the concrete
axial behavior: D1 for damage in tension and D2 for damage in

946 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955

 ␴f
␴ ⬍ − ␴ f → F共␴兲 = , F⬘共␴兲 = 0 共7兲
2
where ␴ f = crack closure stress, which is the stress at which the
crack is supposed to be totally closed and concrete stiffness is no
longer affected by the previous cycle in tension. Hence, once the
crack is closed, it is assumed that concrete behavior in compres-
sion is unaffected by accumulated damage in tension. This as-
sumption is commonly accepted and backed by experimental evi-
dence in uniaxial loading 共Ramtani et al. 1992兲. As can be seen
from Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲, loading and unloading in compression take
place on the same linear path, with no hysteresis, when damage is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

unchanged. Although this hysteretic behavior is observed experi-

Fig. 1. Behavior of concrete modeled with the La Borderie model
compression. These two damage variables reflect the different
mechanisms of deterioration in tension and in compression, and
can be viewed as the material’s memory, recording the irrevers-
ible damage that the material has accumulated. Damage cannot be
recovered, and varies from 0 for an undamaged material to 1 for
a totally ruined one. In a simple way, a damage variable repre-
sents how much undamaged material of an initial unit volume of
material remains after a certain loading history. Based on the
work of Mazars 共1986兲, the damage law used here was first pro-
posed by La Borderie 共1991兲. In its general form this law is three
dimensional 共3D兲 but is presented here in its uniaxial formulation
where the total strain is given by
␧=␧ +␧ e i
where ␧e and ␧i = elastic and inelastic strain, respectively, and are
given by
␴+ ␴−
␧e = + 共2兲
E共1 − D1兲 E共1 − D2兲
␤ 1D 1 ␤ 2D 2
␧ =
i
F⬘共␴兲 +
E共1 − D1兲 E共1 − D2兲
in which E = initial tangent Young’s modulus; ␤i = material con-
stants; ␴+ = positive part of the stress; and ␴− = negative part of the
stress and are expressed by
␴ ⬎ 0 → ␴+ = ␴, ␴− = 0
␴ ⬍ 0 → ␴+ = 0, ␴− = ␴
where F共␴兲 = crack closure function, which provides a stiffness
recovery procedure from tension to compression and models the
crack closure mechanism 共see Fig. 1兲. Specific tests have been
realized to characterize the effect of damage in tension when the
specimen is loaded in compression 共Ramtani et al. 1992兲. These
tests have shown that it is necessary to reach a certain level of
compression ␴ f for the cracks to be completely closed 共unilateral
effect兲. Tests have also shown that the choice of a linear crack
closure function is a valid assumption 共Mazars et al. 1989兲 and
can be written as
␴ ⬎ 0 → F共␴兲 = ␴, F⬘共␴兲 = 1
mentally, its effect is very small compared to the hysteresis re-
sulting from stress reversal following increase in damage, which
is accounted for by the model.
The damage progress is consistent with thermodynamics of
irreversible process. In this framework, let us introduce the en-
ergy release rate Y i 共i = 1 for tension or 2 for compression兲
␴+2 ␤1F共␴兲
Y1 = + 共8兲
2E共1 − D1兲2 E共1 − D1兲2
␴−2 ␤ 2␴
Y2 = + 共9兲
2E共1 − D2兲2 E共1 − D2兲2
The damage threshold is handled in a classical manner using the
loading function f i = Y i − Zi, where Zi = threshold dependent on the
共1兲 hardening variables. Before loading, the damage threshold is
equal to the initial threshold 共Zi = Y 0i兲 and Di = 0. When loading
increases, Y i increases up to Y 0i 共f i = 0兲; Zi and Di remain un-
changed. If loading keeps on increasing, Y i ⬎ Y 0i, then Zi = Y i and
damage increases as
1
Di = 1 − i = 1,2 共10兲
共3兲 1 + 关Ai共Y i − Y 0i兲兴Bi
where Ai and Bi = material constants. When loading is reversed Y i
decreases; Di and Zi remain unchanged. Damage will only in-
crease when Y i reaches the new threshold of damage Zi during the
next loading cycle.
The model is controlled by 10 material constants: E, A1, B1,
共4兲 Y 01, ␤1, A2, B2, Y 02, ␤2, ␴ f . The modulus of elasticity E is known
from test results or the value recommended by the relevant code
is used. Other constants are separated into two types: 共1兲 those
affecting the monotonic behavior and 共2兲 those controlling the
cyclic behavior. Note that tension and compression constants are
selected separately.
The constant ␤2 controls the evolution of plastic strain during
cyclic tests in compression. This value should be based on test
data. However, such tests are scarce and to evaluate ␤2 for general
use, a numerical model based on experimental evidence is used.
Dodd and Cooke 共1994兲 have proposed such a model and dem-
onstrated its adequacy to predict cyclic behavior of normal
strength concrete. Li et al. 共1994兲 have shown its good perfor-
mance for high-strength concrete 共HSC兲. The model relates the
共5兲
permanent strain 共strain at zero stress兲 to the maximum reached

冉 冊
strain and corresponding stress as well as the strain at peak stress.
␴ ␴ Assuming a pure compression test 共D1 = 0兲, when ␴ = 0, the strain
− ␴ f ⬍ ␴ ⬍ 0 → F共␴兲 = ␴ 1 − , F⬘共␴兲 = 1 − 共6兲
2␴ f ␴f determined by Eq. 共1兲 is

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 947

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Cusson and Paultre stress–strain model for confined concrete
␤ 2D 2
␧i =
E共1 − D2兲
where D2 = damage value, which is constant along the unloading
path since no damage is added during unloading. The strain, ␧u,
just before unloading is
␴u
␧u = + ␧i
E共1 − D2兲
The Dodd and Cooke 共1994兲 model provides a relation between ␧i
and ␧u as
共␧u − ␧a兲␴u
␧i = ␧u −
␴u − E␧a
where
␧a = a冑␧u␧⬘cc
␧⬘cc is the strain at peak of the confined stress–strain curve 共see
Fig. 2兲 and
冉 冊
␧⬘cc ␧u
a = max ;0.09
␧ + ␧⬘cc
u
␧⬘cc
␴u is determined for a certain ␧u from the confined stress–strain
relationship of concrete in compression proposed by Légeron and
Paultre 共2003兲 described below. ␧i is determined by Eq. 共13兲.
These three values are replaced in Eq. 共12兲 to determine D2. ␤2 is
obtained from Eq. 共11兲. The procedure can easily be used to find
␤2 for a wide range of unloading strain ␧u. Based on the Dodd and
Cook model, ␤2 varies very slightly, which reinforces the concept
of a material constant. In this research program, an average value
over an appropriate strain range is used. Based on a wide range of
identifications, a starting value of 0.6f ⬘cc is recommended, where
f ⬘cc = strength of confined concrete as described in Légeron and
Paultre 共2003兲.
The model is set up for the general 3D case, but is used in a
uniaxial formulation incorporating confinement due to lateral
pressure that may come, in a passive way, from transverse rein-
forcement. When confinement is considered, the constants A2, B2,
and Y 02 must be appropriately selected. Parameter Y 02 controls the
damage threshold in compression. Increasing Y 02 results in
greater stress range over which the behavior of concrete is linear.
It also increases the maximum strength without modifying peak
strain. Parameters A2 and B2 control the maximum stress and
ductility, respectively. Increasing A2 decreases the strength and
the strain at peak. Increasing B2 decreases ductility while increas-
ing slightly the strength. These constants are identified by fitting
948 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955
the response of a “numerical” cylinder using the damage model
on the stress–strain curve predicted by the confinement model
proposed Légeron and Paultre 共2003兲. An example of a fitted
curve will be shown in the section on example of applications.
This model was selected since it has been tested for a wide range
of concrete strengths, confinement steel yield strengths, and con-
figurations, and different loading types 共Légeron and Paultre
2003兲. The stress–strain curve used for confined concrete is pre-
sented in Fig. 2. It is beyond the scope of this paper to present the
confinement model, but more information can be found in
Légeron and Paultre 共2003兲.
The parameter ␤1 controls the cyclic behavior in tension. From
test results, it can be taken as 共Légeron 1998兲
␤1 = 0.5 + 0.35f t⬘ 共16兲
where f ⬘t = concrete tensile strength.
In monotonic tension, it is assumed that there is no damage up
共11兲 to the tensile strength. The threshold of damage Y 01 is determined
directly from Eq. 共8兲
f 2t ␤1 f t
Y 01 = + 共17兲
2E E
It is difficult to experimentally obtain the complete tensile
共12兲
stress–strain curve of concrete with a stable postpeak behavior. It
is accepted that postpeak behavior of concrete in tension is related
to the amount and distribution of reinforcement. The parameters
defining the postpeak softening are fitted to the tension stiffening
behavior of reinforced concrete presented by Vecchio and Collins
共13兲 共1986兲. As for the case of compression, the constants A1 and B1
are determined by fitting the response of a “numerical cylinder”
using the damage model to the stress–strain curve predicted with
Vecchio and Collins’s tension stiffening model. When the post-
共14兲
peak behavior in tension is not critical, which is generally the
case with seismic analysis, A1 = B1 = 1 can be used. These values
give a sharp postpeak softening. It must be noted that, under
cyclic loading, the crack interface deteriorates faster than under
monotonic loading and therefore A1 = B1 = 1 is generally a good fit
共15兲
for cyclic and seismic loading.
The mechanism of crack closure is controlled by the so-called
“crack closure stress” ␴ f . The crack closure stress is very much
affected by concrete strength and placement method 共crack rough-
ness兲. For monolithic structures, ␴ f is in the range of the tensile
strength and can be taken as
f ⬘c
␴f = − 共18兲
10
For concrete with dry joints, ␴ f can be significantly lower.
The identification procedure may seem tedious, although, with
some experience, it can be done quite fast, since only A2, B2, and
Y 02 require a trial-and-error procedure. All the other parameters
are calculated directly. To simplify the task for users, sets of val-
ues corresponding to typical concretes and typical levels of con-
finement are available in a design process. The identification step
is reduced to selecting a set of parameters that correspond to the
concrete used. For cases for which data are not provided, using a
set of values close to the case at hand as a starting point acceler-
ates the parameter identification process.
Reinforcing Steel
A damage mechanics behavioral law can be use to model the
cyclic behavior of reinforcing steel 共Ragueneau 1999兲. However,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Prediction of cyclic test on steel coupons

Fig. 3. Dodd and Cooke model for cyclic behavior of reinforcing
steel
a simplification of the model proposed by Dodd and Cooke
共1994兲 is used here with a bilinear envelope curve 共Fig. 3兲. The
stress ␴ is expressed as
␴ = ␴e − ␴ p
F = K共D兲U + Fi共D兲 共23兲
where K共D兲 = global secant stiffness matrix, which depends on
the damage state of the structure; U and F = nodal displacements
and forces, respectively; and Fi共D兲 = inelastic force vector.
The assembly of the global stiffness matrix is performed by
addition of the element stiffness matrices using the direct stiffness
method procedure. The element stiffness matrix in the local coor-
共19兲 dinate is

冤 冥
where
k1 0
k4 − k1 0 − k4
␴e = ␧Es 共20兲 k3 k5 0 − k3 k5
k6 − k4 − k5 k6/2
If the strain is the maximum experienced strain in that direction, Ke = 共24兲
the stress is found from the bilinear curve. Otherwise SYM. k1 0 k4
k3 − k5

␴p = 冉
␧ − ␧a
␧b − ␧a
冊 p
关Es共␧b − ␧a兲 − ␴b兴 共21兲
where
k6

where N
1
兺
冉 冊
k1 = E j共D j兲b jh j
c L j=1
Es 1 − 共␧b − ␧a兲
Es
p= 共22兲 N
Es共␧b − ␧a兲 − ␴b 12
k3 = 兺
L3 j=1
E j共D j兲b jh j y 2j
All the variables in Eqs. 共19兲–共22兲 are described in Fig. 3. The
algorithm requires storing the last point of crossing with the x
axis 共strain- or zero-stress axis兲 ␧a and the last maximum strain −1
N

reached in each direction ␧b together with current maximum k4 =

L j=1
兺
E j共D j兲b jh j y j 共25兲
strain. The last maximum strain is the point after which the re-
sponse comes back to the bilinear envelope curve. An example of
N
the prediction of test results on steel coupons obtained by Dodd 6
and Cooke 共1994兲 is presented in Fig. 4. The model generally k5 = 兺
L2 j=1
E j共D j兲b jh j y 2j
describes the behavior of reinforcing steel very well.
N
4
EFiCoS: Two-Dimensional Layered Finite-Element
k6 = 兺
L j=1
E j共D j兲b jh j y 2j
Program
where N = number of layers making up the section; h j and b j
The program used in this research is EFiCoS, a 2D layered beam = height and width of layer j, respectively; y j = distance of the
elements damage mechanics-based finite-element program. The center of layer j to the section centroid; and E j共D j兲 = equivalent
multilayer beam element used is a Bernouilli-type beam element modulus of elasticity of layer j, function of damage variable D j.
with 3 degrees of freedom per node 共Fig. 5兲. The damage vari- For concrete layer j, the equivalent modulus of elasticity is given
ables are evaluated at the center of each layer, halfway between by
the two nodes. Plane sections are assumed to remain plane and
E j共D j兲 = 共1 − D j兲Ecj 共26兲
the strain at the point of evaluation of damage in each layer is
found with classical interpolation polynomials. Nodal forces and where the corresponding damage variable D j is used depending if
displacements are found by solving the following equation: the concrete is in tension or compression. For layers made up of

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 949

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955

 Fig. 5. Layered beam element in EFiCoS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

concrete and reinforcing steel, the equivalent modulus of elastic-

ity is determined as follows:
E j共D j兲 = 共1 − ␳ j兲共1 − D j兲Ecj + ␳ jEsj 共27兲
where ␳ j = volumetric ratio of the longitudinal reinforcement steel
in the layer.
The elemental inelastic force vector is

e = 关f 1
FiT 0 f3 − f1 0 − f 3兴 共28兲
where
N

兺
Fig. 7. Concentration of plastic deformation in bottom element
f1 = L 关共1 − D j兲Ecj␧ij + ␴ pj ␳ j兴b jh j 共29兲
i=1

and of a limited number of degrees of freedom for a given model by

N using the nodal generalized displacements instead of layer strain
f3 = − L 兺
j=1
关共1 − D j兲Ecj␧ij + ␴ pj ␳ j兴b jh j y j
where ␧ij = inelastic strain in layer j and ␴ pj = stress given by Eq.
共21兲 for the reinforcement steel in layer j.
EFiCoS analysis is controlled by force or displacement. Dis-
placement control is particularly suited for softening structures.
The nonlinear algorithm is robust and convergence is reached
even for very steep postpeak softening, as will be demonstrated in
the following examples. Earthquake effects are accounted for by
applying displacement and velocity history at the supports and
writing the equations of motion in terms of total displacements.
For dynamic analysis, the unconditionally stable Newmark con-
stant acceleration step-by-step integration method is used together
with Rayleigh damping. An important aspect of EFiCoS is the use
共30兲
directly. Such modeling is very effective for seismic and cyclic
loading analyses for flexure dominated structures, since the load-
ing history of each layer is taken into account through the damage
variables, while the number of degrees of freedom is kept suffi-
ciently small. This small number of degrees of freedom allows
nonlinear time–history analysis to be performed on fairly com-
plex structures within a reasonable time. The program is also well
suited for monotonic loading, such as pushover analysis, while
providing direct damage indices.
Localization and Length of Elements
For linear analysis, the accuracy of a finite-element model in pre-
dicting displacement increases with mesh refinement, i.e., with

Fig. 8. Prediction of compressive stress–strain curve of concrete in

Fig. 6. Response of columns with different sized elements overreinforced beams

950 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955

 Table 1. Parameters of Damage Laws Used for Concrete of Overreinforced Beams
Ec Y 01 A1 B1 ␤1 Y 02 A2 B2 ␤2 ␴f
Concrete type 共MPa兲 共10−6 MPa兲 共10−6 MPa−1兲 共⫺兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共MPa−1兲 共⫺兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲
NSC 26,950 145 0.012 1.00 1.13 0.01 8.10 1.47 −34.3 2.3
HSC 52,320 422 0.002 1.50 2.16 0.10 1.80 5.00 −50.7 15.4
FHSC 50,150 471 0.005 1.55 2.22 0.08 0.90 2.60 −130.0 12.3
Note: NSC⫽normal-strength concrete; HSC⫽high-strength concrete; and FHSC⫽fiber high-strength concrete.

more smaller elements. However, for nonlinear analysis, this is would have the highest accuracy. Yet this does not reflect what
not necessarily true, since localization phenomena may result in actually happens.
large errors in predicting structure responses. Consider, for ex- Inadequate element size for the material stress–strain law used
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ample, a 2 m high column under high axial load and subjected to
monotonically increasing flexure. The column is discretized with
equal length elements. Three models are obtained with element
length equal to 100, 250, and 500 mm, resulting in three models
with 20, 8, and 4 elements, respectively. EFiCoS analysis consists
of imposing an incremental displacement at the tip of the columns
up to rupture. The result of the analysis is presented in Fig. 6
showing tip displacement versus horizontal force at the base for
the three models. It can be seen that, although moment capacity is
marginally affected by the element size, displacement capacity
varies considerably for the three models. To understand the prob-
lem, assume that the column shown in Fig. 6 has a perfectly
bilinear moment–curvature response. The curvature distribution
when the maximum curvature ␾u is reached in the most loaded
element is presented in Fig. 7 for all three models. From this
simplified curvature distribution, the ultimate displacement ⌬u
can be calculated as
⌬u = ⌬y + le共␾u − ␾y兲共H − le/2兲 共31兲
where H = height of the column; le = element length; ⌬y = yield dis-
placement; and ␾y = yield curvature. As shown in Fig. 7, ⌬y and
␾y are not affected by element length since the layered beam
element is exact within the Euler–Bernouilli beam theory for lin-
ear elastic behavior. However, ⌬u is directly related to element
length le as evidenced by Eq. 共31兲. The maximum displacement of
the model with 500 mm long elements is roughly three times the
maximum displacement obtained with the model with 100 mm
long elements. Hence, using a fine mesh to get a more accurate
response may result in a higher ductility demand in the critical
section for a constant displacement ductility. This mesh depen-
dency is certainly not acceptable in performance-based design.
Reasoning along the same lines as for linear elastic analysis
would lead to assuming that the model with 100 mm elements
overcomes any effort to precisely model material behavior. Two
methods are commonly used to adequately predict the behavior of
softening structures: 共1兲 adapt the stress–strain law of material to
element size 共Coleman and Spacone 2001兲 or 共2兲 use a predeter-
mined element size corresponding to conventional stress–strain
laws defined in standardized tests. The second approach is more
practical and is adopted here. A stability approach 共Légeron 1998兲
or an energy approach 共Bažant 1979兲 can be used to determine
element length. An easier approach is to use an equivalent plastic
hinge length giving comparable results in practical situations
共Légeron 1998兲. An appropriate expression for the equivalent
plastic hinge length is given by Priestley et al. 共1996兲 as
l p = 0.08L + 0.022db f y 共m,MPa兲 共32兲
where L = length between the end of the member and the point of
contraflexure; and db and f y = diameter and yield strength of the
longitudinal bars, respectively.
For structures with hardening behavior, localization has only a
limited influence on global behavior. However, a certain strain
localization always occurs and the curvature ductility demand
will also depend on element length, although in a less pronounced
way. In this case, it is also necessary to use fixed element length
as for softening structures.
Comparison to Test Data
To validate the methodology and the model, predictions using
EFiCoS are compared to three different sets of experimental data
covering a wide range of applications: 共1兲 tests on over-reinforced
beams with normal-strength concrete 共NSC兲 and high-strength
concrete 共HSC兲 共Van Mier and Ulfkjaer 2000兲; 共2兲 cyclic quasi-
static tests on HSC columns 共Légeron and Paultre 2000 and

Fig. 9. Prediction of small overreinforced high-strength concrete and Fig. 10. Prediction of small overreinforced fiber high-strength con-
normal-strength concrete beams crete beams

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 951

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Prediction of large overreinforced normal-strength concrete
beams
Paultre et al. 2001兲; and 共3兲 pseudodynamic tests on bridge piers
共Pinto et al. 1996兲.
Flexural Behavior of Overreinforced Beam
Van Mier and Ulfkjaear 共2000兲 tested 12 simply supported beams
with four different configurations and three repetitions for each
configuration. The beams were tested under monotonic four-point
loading. Three large-size beams were made with NSC and with
the same configuration. The nine other beams were small beams
broken into three groups. Three beams were made with NSC,
three with HSC, and three with fiber high-strength concrete
共FHSC兲. In 1997, a benchmark was organized by Van Mier and
Ulfkjaear 共2000兲 on the prediction of these overreinforced beams.
The purpose of this benchmark was to determine if available
modeling techniques were able to predict scale effects on soften-
ing structures. Confinement and strain localization were not an
issue since no confinement steel was provided and the maximum
moment was constant in the central part of the beams between the
applied loads. Only the experimental stress–strain law of materi-
als and the complete geometry were provided for the benchmark.
In view of the good predictions by the authors, Van Mier and
Ulfkjaer 共2000兲 wrongly reported that the experimental results
Fig. 12. Tests of high-strength concrete columns under axial load and reversed flexure
952 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955
were known by the authors of this paper. It is stressed that this is
not true, since the predictions were submitted about 1 year before
the results were revealed at the seminar organized during Proc.,
FRAMCOS3 共Légeron et al. 1998兲. The predictions reported
herein were made without any knowledge of the results of beam
testing.
The parameters of the damage laws were adjusted on the ex-
perimental concrete stress–strain curves provided 共Fig. 8兲 and are
reported in Table 1. For HSC, the model was not able to predict
the unstable postpeak behavior. It is believed that the testing ma-
chine used to determine the stress–strain curve was not stiff
enough or that test control was not appropriate for testing
ultrahigh-strength concrete specimens. Typical values for post-
peak behavior of this type of concrete were used instead. For
additional information on modeling see Légeron et al. 共1998兲.
The predictions of midspan deflection as a function of the
applied load was performed with EFiCoS and reported in Figs. 9
and 10 for the small beams and in Fig. 11 for the large beams. For
the small NSC beams, the prediction of the strength and the post-
peak behavior is very good 共Fig. 9兲. In the case of HSC beams,
the stiffness is slightly overestimated, but the predicted strength is
very close to the experimental value. The experienced postpeak
behavior is unstable, which is quite well predicted since a rather
steep numerical postpeak results experimentally in an unstable
behavior except if very good control and stiff experimental frame
is provided, which was probably not the case here. The prediction
of FHSC 共Fig. 10兲, the stiffness, and maximum load is fairly
accurate while the displacement at peak is somewhat overesti-
mated. However, the prediction of postpeak behavior is quite
good. For the large beams 共Fig. 11兲, the predictions of the initial
stiffness, the strength, and the postpeak response are excellent.
This example shows that the use of EFiCoS, as described herein,
makes it possible to adequately predict the behavior of over-
reinforced concrete beams under monotonic loading.
Cyclic Tests on High-Strength Concrete Columns
Légeron and Paultre 共2000兲 and Paultre et al. 共2001兲 tested 12
HSC columns subjected to constant axial load and reversed flex-
ure 共Fig. 12兲. The columns were heavily confined. The volumetric
 model uses monotonic material tests and the geometric configu-
ration of the transverse reinforcement. The columns were mod-
eled with five elements each 400 mm in length. This length cor-
responds to the length of the equivalent plastic hinge as
determined from Eq. 共32兲. The response of these columns was
very sensitive to the size of elements.
Examples of predictions made with EFiCoS are shown in Figs.
13. Damage parameters used are presented in Table 2. It can be
seen that the overall behavior is very well predicted as evidenced
by the following three parameters: loading and unloading
branches, maximum capacity, and pinching effects. The excellent
prediction of these parameters reflects the fact that the model does
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a good job of taking into account confinement effects and crack

closure mechanism. The important fact for performance-based
seismic design or analysis is that the model accounts for the effect
of local behavior as can be seen in Fig. 13, i.e., cracking of
concrete, onset of spalling at peak, progressive spalling of the
concrete cover, and yielding of the reinforcement steel. This type
of problem is common in engineering practice where column be-
havior has to be predicted with simplified analysis, with only
structure geometry and uniaxial stress-strain law of materials.

Tests on Bridge Piers

Fig. 13. Prediction of the behavior of columns tested by Légeron and
Paultre: 共a兲 column C100BH80N40, 共b兲 column C100B60N15, and
共c兲 column C100BH55N52
ratio of transverse steel reached 4.26% for certain columns. Other
columns were confined with high–yield strength steel to compen-
sate for a lower amount of confinement reinforcement. Reinforce-
ment steel with a yield strength of 400 MPa was used for longi-
tudinal reinforcement whose area ratio was kept constant at
2.15%. The specimens tested represent a 4 m high ground-floor
HSC column in a typical building with a 305⫻ 305 mm cross
section. The column is connected to a massive stub simulating a
rigid member at the base. A transverse load is applied at the tip of
the specimen, 2 m from the base of the column. The parameters of
the damage model were identified on a confined HSC uniaxial
model 共Cusson and Paultre 1995, Légeron and Paultre 2003兲. This
The European Laboratory for Structural Assessment in Ispra,
Italy, tested large-scale piers of bridge models under simulated
seismic loading by the pseudodynamic substructure method
共Pinto et al. 1996兲. Only the prediction of the behavior of bridge
B232 is presented here. This bridge is a four-span continuous
prestressed concrete box-girder bridge supported by two simple
supports at each end and two 14 m high piers surrounding a cen-
tral pier 21 m high. The tested bridge had a 1:2.5 scale factor
resulting in the dimensions shown in Fig. 14. The substructure
test technique 共Pinto et al. 1996兲 is used in this case. With this
technique, the bridge girder is not tested, because its behavior is
supposed to be linear elastic. Instead, it is modeled using the finite
element method. Model analysis provides the displacement to be
imposed on the bridge piers, which are the only bridge elements
actually tested in the laboratory under pseudodynamic conditions.
The nonlinear restoring forces measured from the bridge piers are
then fed back to the finite element model for determination of the
next displacement step and so on. The damage model parameters
were identified based on test results of the materials provided in
Pinto et al. 共1996兲. A 3D discretization is necessary since the
bridge was loaded in a transverse direction. However, each pier is
subjected to mainly planar loads in the direction of the earth-
quake. Hence, 2D layered elements are used. Special bearing el-
ements connect the pier and the girder. These elements take into
consideration the actual load transfer between the girder and the

Table 2. Parameters of Damage Laws Used for High-Strength Concrete Columns

Ec Y 01 A1 B1 ␤1 Y 02 A2 B2 ␤2 ␴f
共MPa兲 共10−6 MPa兲 共10−6 MPa−1兲 共⫺兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共MPa−1兲 共⫺兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲
Confined
C100B60N15 36,000 1,130 1.0 1.0 3.20 0.32 0.60 1.75 −140 12.3
C100B80N40 39,300 1,330 1.0 1.0 3.57 0.40 1.30 1.30 −80 12.3
C100B55N52 38,100 937 1.0 1.0 3.02 0.53 0.55 1.30 −135 13.8
Unconfined
C100B60N15 36,000 1,130 1.0 1.0 3.20 0.12 2.6 3.20 −53 9.24
C100B80N40 39,300 1,330 1.0 1.0 3.57 0.05 1.70 3.80 −64 10.4
C100B55N52 38,100 937 1.0 1.0 3.02 0.04 0.16 3.80 −64 10.4

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 953

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Prediction of top displacement of 5.6 m high pier

Fig. 14. Bridge tested at Ispra
pier, i.e., shear at the top of a pier is transferred into horizontal
shear in the girder; flexure at the top of the pier is transferred into
horizontal shear and torsion in the girder 共as the actual bearing
did not transfer any moment兲.
The displacements at the top of the central pier and at one of
the lateral piers recorded during the test are compared with the
predicted displacements using EFiCoS. Damage parameters used
are presented in Table 3. The results shown in Figs. 15 and 16
were obtained for a generated accelerogram having a peak ground
acceleration twice the design peak ground acceleration. This high
acceleration level implies that the piers are subject to high ductil-
ity demand. This translates into a highly nonlinear pier response.
A set of stationary artificial accelerograms fitting the Eurocode 8
response spectrum has been generated and one of them was cho-
sen for the pseudodynamic tests 共Pinto et al. 1996兲. The acelero-
gram has a duration of 10 s and a nominal peak ground accelera-
tion of 0.35g. This accelerogram was scaled for the test model
according to the similitude rules chosen 共Cauchy similitude, ve-
locity preserved兲. The resulting accelerogram used in the PSD
tests had a peak ground acceleration of 0.35⫻ 2.5= 0.875g and a
duration of 10/ 2.5= 4 s. The complete acceleration time history
was used in the prediction with EFiCoS. As can be seen from
Figs. 15 and 16, the predicted responses are in good agreement
with the test data. Small differences between the predicted and
measured responses can be explained in part by the integration
method used during the tests. Indeed, a special algorithm was
developed at ISPRA for the nonlinear analysis and the substruc-
ture technique which was not used in the analysis with EFiCoS.
This integration method introduced a certain numerical damping
into the system, which could not be reproduced by the traditional
Rayleigh damping. A parametric study was carried out with dif-
ferent damping values, but only the results with the values of the
Rayleigh parameters used during the tests are presented, disre-
garding the additional damping due to the pseudodynamic test.
The predictions are excellent, even at high nonlinear demand,
considering that only the data available to an engineer at the
project level were used.
Conclusion
In this paper, a complete approach to the prediction of concrete
structures subjected to cyclic and earthquake-type loadings is pre-
sented. This approach is based on a 2D damage mechanics lay-
ered finite-element program. Some guidance is provided on how
to use such modeling techniques in terms of material constitutive
laws and element length to regularize the response predictions of
nonlinear softening structures such as highly compressed rein-
forced concrete columns. The program was used to predict the
behavior of a large range of structural components and structures
tested under monotonic, cyclic, and seismic loading. It was shown
that the global response of the test specimens was predicted quite
well. An important point in performance-based design is that local
behavior such as spalling of concrete cover, cracking, and yield-
ing of longitudinal bars were taken into account as well as global
behavior. This approach is a powerful tool for seismic analysis
and other engineering problems in which nonlinear structure re-
sponse is dominated by flexure. Moreover, damage mechanics
provide a good picture of the level of damage that a structure has
accumulated during an earthquake, which is of prime importance
for performance-based earthquake engineering. The method de-
scribed in this paper is a basis from which researchers and prac-
titioners can develop guidance to help engineers in modeling
structures for PBEE. Such approaches are critical if the engineer-
ing community wants to successfully implement PBEE. Further

Table 3. Parameters of Damage Laws Used for Concrete Bridge Pier

Ec Y 01 A1 B1 ␤1 Y 02 A2 B2 ␤2 ␴f
共MPa兲 共10−6 MPa兲 共10−6 MPa−1兲 共⫺兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共MPa−1兲 共⫺兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲
Confined
Pile 5.6 m 31,700 389 0.002 1.0 1.71 0.05 3.10 2.20 −71 4.78
Pile 8.4 m 32,650 416 0.002 1.0 1.78 0.05 2.40 2.20 −80 5.33
Unconfined
Pile 5.6 m 31,700 389 0.002 1.0 1.71 0.01 4.20 1.70 −38 4.17
Pile 8.4 m 32,650 416 0.002 1.0 1.78 0.03 4.00 1.65 −40 4.56

954 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005

J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Li. Co.Sa 8181901/mi/155985 on 03/24/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Prediction of top displacement of 8.4 m high pier
development of the method will aim at proposing direct relation
between damage variables and actual damage on tested structural
elements for prediction of local behavior. Works are in progress to
apply EFiCoS to shear sensitive structures such as squat walls
共Mazars et al. 2002兲 and to develop a fully 3D version of EFiCoS
that can be applied to columns under cyclic biaxial flexure.
Acknowledgments
The writers acknowledge the financial support provided by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
They would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for
their constructive comments which have helped clarify the paper.
References
Bažant, Z. P. 共1979兲. “Advanced topics in inelasticity and failure of con-
crete.” Gotab, Stockholm.
Coleman, J., and Spacone, E. 共2001兲. “Localization issues in force-based
frame elements.” J. Struct. Eng. 127共11兲, 1257–1265.
Cusson, D., and Paultre, P. 共1995兲. “Stress–strain model for confined
high-strengh concrete.” J. Struct. Eng. 121共3兲, 468–477.
Dodd, L. L., and Cooke, N. 共1994兲. “The dynamic behaviour of
reinforced-concrete bridge piers subjected to New Zealand seismic-
ity.” Research Rep. No. 92-04, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 共FEMA兲 共1997兲. “NEHRP
guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” Rep. No. FEMA
273, FEMA, Washington, D.C.
La Borderie, C. 共1991兲. “Unilateral phenomena in a damageable material:
modelling and application to the analysis of concrete structures.” PhD
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 955
J. Struct. Eng., 2005, 131(6): 946-955
thesis, Univ. Paris VI, Laboratoire de Mécanique et de Technologie,
Cachan, France 共in French兲.
Légeron, F. 共1998兲. “Seismic behavior of structures made with normal
and high-performance concrete.” PhD thesis, Univ. of Sherbrooke and
École Nationale de Ponts et Chaussés, Sherbrooke, and Paris 共in
French兲.
Légeron, F., Mazars, J., and Paultre, P. 共1998兲. “Prediction of the behav-
iour of over-reinforced concrete beams with damage model and a
simplified approach.” Proc., Fracture Mechanics of Concrete Struc-
tures (FRAMCOS 3), Gifu, Japon, AEDIFICATIO, Freiburg, Ger-
many.
Légeron, F., and Paultre, P. 共2000兲. “Behavior of high-strength concrete
columns Under Cyclic Flexure and Constant Axial Load.” ACI Struct.
J., 97共4兲, 591–601.
Légeron, F., and Paultre, P. 共2003兲. “Uniaxial confinement model for
normal and high-strength concrete columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 129共2兲,
241–252.
Li, B., Park, R., and Tanaka, H. 共1994兲. “Strength and ductility of rein-
forced concrete members and frames constructed using HSC.” Re-
search Rep. No. 94-5, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Canter-
bury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Mazars, J. 共1986兲. “A description of micro and macroscale damage of
concrete structures.” Eng. Fract. Mech. 25共5/6兲, 729–737.
Mazars, J., Kotronis, P., and Davenne, L. 共2002兲. “A new modeling strat-
egy for the behavior of walls under dynamic loading.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31, 937–954.
Mazars, J., Ramtani, S., and Berhaud, Y. 共1989兲. “An experimental pro-
cedure to delocalize tensile failure and to identify the unilateral effect
of tensile damage.” Cracking and damage—Strain localization and
size effect, J. Mazars and Z. P. Bašant, eds., Elsevier Science, London,
55–64.
Paultre, P., Légeron, F., and D. Mongeau 共2001兲. “Influence of concrete
strength and transverse reinforcement yield strength on the behavior
of high-strength concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 98共4兲, 490–501.
Pinto, A. V., Verzeletti, G., Pegon, P., Magonette, G., Negro, P., and
Guedes, J. 共1996兲. “Pseudodynamic testing of large-scale R/C
bridges.” Rep. No. EUR 16378 EN, European Laboratory for Struc-
tural Assessment, Ispra, Italy.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. 共1996兲. Seismic design
and retrofit of bridges, Wiley, New York.
Ragueneau, F. 共1999兲. “Dynamic behavior of concrete structures—
Influence of local hysteretic behavior.” PhD thesis, Univ. Paris VI,
Laboratoire de Mécanique et de Technologie, Cachan, France 共in
French兲.
Ramtani, S., Berthaud, Y., and Mazars, J. 共1992兲. “Orthotropic behavior
of concrete with directional aspects: modelling and experiments.”
Nucl. Eng. Des., 133, 97–111.
Van Mier, J. G. M., and Ulfkjaer, J. P. 共2000兲. “Round robin analysis of
over-reinforced concrete beams—Comparison of results.” Mater.
Struct., 33共230兲, 381–390.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. 共1986兲. “The modified compression-field
theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.” ACI J.,
83共2兲, 219–231.