Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

29 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Lab Report1
- Hillerborg Strip Method
- Finite-Element Design of Concrete Structures,2nd_By G.a. Rombach
- Finite-element Design of Concrete Structures, 2nd Rombach
- New Design of Composites
- GB3GB4GB5A
- ASD-Insert Plate Check
- Glulam curved beam design to EC5
- BE Sem III Civil Engg Strength of Materials
- Combined Hardening P406
- Analysis on the Leveling Capacity of an 11 Rollers
- [Design of Composite Materials and Structures
- Richard Garrison Material Science Lab 1
- 2668
- The Effect of Plasticity in Crumpling of Thin Sheets
- revista journal aci
- Proba
- 6 2 Shearing Stresses
- 1_De Clerck
- Module 07 - Plastic Analysis of Beams

You are on page 1of 13

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

reinforced concrete frames

Edoardo Cosenza, Gaetano Manfredi *, Gerardo M. Verderame

Department of Structural Analysis and Design, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio, 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy

Abstract

Most of the existing reinforced concrete buildings were designed according to early seismic provisions or, sometimes, without applying

any seismic provision. Some problems of strength and ductility, like insuﬃcient shear strength, pull-out of rebars, local mechanisms, etc.,

could characterize their structural behaviour. The above mentioned topics lead to a number of problems in the evaluation of the seismic

behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC) frames. Therefore the assessment of existing RC structures requires advanced tools. A reﬁned

model and numerical procedure for the non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete frames is presented. The current version of the model

proposed is capable of describing the non-linear behaviour of underdesigned reinforced concrete frames including brittle modes of fail-

ure. Selected results of an experimental–theoretical comparison are presented to show the capabilities of this model. The results show the

capacity of the model of describing both the global behaviour and the local deformation at service and ultimate state.

2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Modelling of reinforced concrete frames more popular. They still keep the basic hypothesis of sub-

dividing the structure in mono-dimensional elements, even

Many models for the non-linear analysis of RC frames though they could be deﬁned as a hybrid between point by

are proposed in the literature. They can be classiﬁed point and member by member models. The constitutive

depending on the level of discretization [1] in point by point laws of concrete and steel are introduced [2]; in recent ver-

model, member by member models and global models. The sions the hypothesis of perfect bond is removed [3] and

choice of the most suitable model depends on the goals of shear collapse is taken into account [4]. Some authors

the analysis and by the structural properties. Structures introduced a joint element accounts for inelastic shear

characterized by brittle mechanisms require a non-linear deformation and bar bond slip in program DRAIN-2DX

analysis and then the use of highly discretized models; on [5,6].

the other hand, for structures with ﬂexural collapse mech- Manfredi and Pecce [7] proposed for beams and col-

anisms, member by member or global models can be used to umns a ﬁbre element that introduces explicitly the bond

obtain reliable predictions. A good balance between com- law s–s. Limkatanyu and Spacone [8] showed that the

putational eﬀort and level of reliability of the results should accurate representation of the bond–slip behaviour is cru-

be achieved in choosing the model by taking into account cial in predicting the response of RC frames subjected to

the amount of basic information that each model requires. both static and dynamic loadings.

In the last few years, ﬁbre models have become more and In the assessment of the seismic capacity of existing

underdesigned RC structures all the brittle failure modes

are potentially active, and this occurrence requires the

*

Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +39 081 7683491. development of a reliable numerical model in terms of

E-mail address: gamanfre@unina.it (G. Manfredi). behaviour and material properties [9]. In this paper a

0045-7949/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.02.003

E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916 905

T interaction

μ

priestley

beam

bending moment fixed-end

with axial force rotation

Mi

N interior

joint hooked rebar pull-out

Mi+1 column

joint

infills footing

zone

Fig. 1. The main mechanisms inﬂuencing non-linear behaviour of reinforced concrete frames.

numerical model for reinforced concrete frames is pre- slippage of rebars), the rotation at the beam–column inter-

sented, which is an extension of the model proposed in face is computed taking into account either the bond

Manfredi and Pecce [7]. The model is able to predict the between concrete and steel or the constitutive law of the

main mechanisms inﬂuencing the non-linear behaviour of hooks.

reinforced concrete frames (Fig. 1). In particular, the pro- The inﬂuence of shear forces on the behaviour of the

posed model considers an explicit introduction of advanced beams was modelled by Priestley et al. [11]; such a model

constitutive bond–slip relationships that allow to describ- is based on a reduction of the shear strength depending

ing the structural behaviour in the large post yielding ﬁeld on the local ductility, as expressed in terms of linear varia-

for elements under bending and axial forces and to intro- tion of the curvature. The model introduced here repre-

duce reﬁned models for beam–column joints [13]. sents an improvement of Priestley’s since it enables the

sectional ductility at any step of the analysis to be directly

2. Element formulation determined and then evaluate the shear strength of those

sections located in the plastic regions. Therefore, along

The beam–column element is characterized by a spread with predicting ductile (i.e., ﬂexural) and brittle (i.e., shear)

of plasticity and distributed cracking: it belongs to the ﬁbre failures, this method allows also failures characterized by

model family. The mechanical properties of the cross-sec- low ductility due to the bending–shear interaction to be

tion are evaluated by considering the constitutive laws of determined.

the materials. The model for inﬁll walls is based on the shear model by

The classic hypothesis of perfect bond between concrete Fardis and Panagiotakos [12]. It takes into account the

and steel is removed and a stress–slip bond constitutive law strength reduction due to the cracking of the panels and

is introduced [10]. Such an aspect allows for a more reliable the post-strength degradation. It is based on four diﬀerent

assessment of the tension stiﬀening eﬀect, for both elastic steps: initial shear behaviour of the uncracked panel,

and plastic ﬁeld, and avoids the approximations due to behaviour of the cracked panel as equivalent strut, its insta-

the assumption of the plastic hinge length. bility after the maximum strength and ﬁnal stage after com-

For the column, it is possible to consider the variation of plete failure characterized by constant residual strength.

axial forces due to lateral loads, and the related eﬀects in

terms of overall strength and deformation capacity. Also, 2.1. The ﬂexural model

considering the axial deformation allows for a detailed sim-

ulation of the interactions between columns and inﬁll walls. The column is considered as a mono-dimensional ele-

In the beam–column joints, that plays a signiﬁcant inﬂu- ment, by introducing a simpliﬁed deformation model for

ence on the structural response, both in terms of strength the cross-section, as shown in Fig. 2. As mentioned before

(i.e., shear failure of the panel or pull-out of the rebars) the hypothesis of perfect bond between steel and concrete is

and deformation (due to the cracking of the concrete and removed. Thus, calculations in the generic cross-section

906 E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916

b(y) in tension:

εc(x)

dc ds

yg ¼ es ðxÞ ect ðxÞ ð4Þ

dx

H h z where Ac, Act and As are the area of the concrete in com-

As pression, of concrete in tension, of the steel bars and U is

dt the bar diameter, respectively.

c ds/dx εct(x)

y

Considering the three functions ec(x), es(x), ect(x) as gov-

εs(x)

erning unknowns, the solution can be achieved by resolving

two non-linear algebraic equations and two diﬀerential

Fig. 2. Deformation model for the cross-section.

equations of the ﬁrst order, linear and non-linear respec-

tively. Since strains have been adopted as unknowns, the

comprised between two subsequent cracks are performed solution in terms of stress is unique in any case, even

considering a linear strain diagram (i.e., concrete in com- though the constitutive laws show a descending branch.

pression and steel in tension). At any integration interval the boundary conditions have

Another signiﬁcant hypothesis is based on pre-deﬁning to be associated to the diﬀerential equations system. In par-

the distance, Dl, between cracks (sub-element) which occur ticular for x = x* and for x = x* + Dl, that means in the

in those sections where the cracking moment value is over- section corresponding to the crack formation, the stress

come. However, this is not a basic hypothesis in the pro- (or strain) is immediately obtainable. In these sections

posed model since the sections where cracks open could rct = ect = 0.

also be determined as the analysis proceeds by computing Is then possible to separate the ﬁrst two equations from

where the tensile stress of the concrete reaches the limit ten- the others to obtain the value of ec(x) and es(x) in the end

sile strength. Using the strain method, the problem is gov- section of the sub-element.

erned by subsequent parameters: the maximum It is to be noted that Eqs. (1) and (2) are coupled to the

compressive strain in the concrete ec(x, yg), the tensile strain diﬀerential equations (3) and (4) by means of the two

in the steel es(x), the tensile strain in the concrete ect(x) and parameters rct(x) and ect(x) describing the behaviour of

the slip between steel rebar and the surrounding concrete in the concrete in tension. By neglecting the ect(x) term in

tension s(x). Eq. (4), usually smaller if compared to es(x) particularly

The material constitutive laws, concrete in compression when the steel is yielded, the diﬀerential equations (3)

rc = rc(ec), concrete in tension rct = rct(ect), steel in ten- and (4) form a system in the es(x) and s(x) terms, separate

sion/compression rs = rs(es) and the steel/concrete bond– from the global equilibrium of the section. In such an

slip relationship s = s(s, x), should be added to the above hypothesis it is then necessary to use Eqs. (1) and (2),

parameters. related to the global equilibrium of the section at the point

The set of equations is composed by the force equilib- where x = x* and x = x* + Dl, in order to obtain bound-

rium equation of the cross-section, the moment equilibrium ary conditions, while inside the element the problem

equation around its geometric axis, the force equilibrium depends on the diﬀerential equations. That simpliﬁes the

equation of the rebar and a compatibility equation between computational eﬀort, and gives a solution in terms of

steel rebar and tensile concrete. The problem is formally s(x) and es(x) which is very close to the eﬀective value.

solved by the subsequent system of equations: The numerical solution of the diﬀerential set of equations

is quite diﬃcult due to the non-linear constitutive laws and

• force equilibrium of the cross-section: the fact that the bond relationship depends on the distance

Z Z of the section from the crack. The problem can be solved

rc ðx; yÞbðyÞ dy rct ðxÞbðyÞ dy As rs ðxÞ ¼ N ðxÞ only by following a numerical approach; in particular, a

Ac Act

discretization is carried out using the ﬁnite diﬀerence

ð1Þ method, by dividing the region included by two cracks

• moment equilibrium around the geometric axis of the into (n 1) parts having lengths equal to Dx, as shown

cross-section: in Fig. 3.

Z Z The mechanical properties of the cross-section are eval-

rc ðx; yÞybðyÞdy þ rct ðxÞybðyÞdy þ As rs ðxÞðh y g Þ ¼ MðxÞ uated in a detailed way, using a ﬁbre approach for material

Ac Act properties and introducing the appropriate constitutive

ð2Þ laws. The latter aspect enables the model to account also

for speciﬁc issues such as the instability of steel rebars in

• translational equilibrium of the steel bar:

compression or conﬁnement eﬀects. The pre-cracking stage

drs 4 (i.e., moment M < Mcr) is determined based on the hypoth-

sðxÞ ¼ 0 ð3Þ

dx U esis of linear elastic behaviour.

E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916 907

M M+ΔM

N x x=x* x=x*+ l

x=x*+Δl N

T T+ΔT

y

εs,1 τi τi+1 εs,n

M1 dc,1 dc,n

Mn

i=1 i i+1 i=n

N N Δll

Δx

x

σs,1 σs,n εs,i εs,i+1

x=x*+Δl εs,m

lim ¼ ð9Þ

within the sub-element is possible as DM m !0 DM m dM m

Z Dl

1

es;m ¼ es ðxÞ dx ð5Þ

Dl 0 2.2. The axial model

where es(x) is the distribution of steel strain along the entire

sub-element and Dl is the length of the sub-element. During the loading process, the non-linear behaviour of

Generally, for a portion subjected at the ends by the the concrete, and the cracking and the plastic deformations

moments M1 and Mn (see Fig. 3) a relationship average of the section result in a change in the axial deformability.

moment Mm average curvature /m of the sub-element, The proposed ﬁbre model allows the assessment of the

can be uniquely deﬁned; in particular, the moment Mm actual axial behaviour of the member by deﬁning both

can be deﬁned, assuming its linear variation between two the axial deformability of the section (cracked and

ends, as the average of moments in cracked sections, while uncracked) and the sub-element deﬁned by two consecutive

the average curvature /m can be obtained solving the sub- cracks.

element as In general, in the case of bending combined with axial

load, if the strain at the geometric axis level of the element

es;m

/m ¼ ð6Þ is assumed as a reference, and for symmetric cross-sections,

h d c;m

the axial strain can be expressed as

where dc,m represents the average neutral axis depth, con-

H

sidering its linear variation between the values taken at eo ¼ es / h ð10Þ

the ends of the sub-element, es,m is the average steel strain 2

and h is the eﬀective depth of the cross-section, where eo is the axial strain, es is the strain in steel, / repre-

respectively. sent the curvature, and h and H are the eﬀective depth and

Deﬁning M im and /im as the moment and the average geometric height of the cross-section, respectively.

iþ1

curvature at the ith step, while M iþ1

m and /m the corre- Considering two consecutive cracks, it is possible to

sponding quantities at the i + 1th step, the moment Mm compute the axial deformability of cracked sections. As

relative to an average curvature within /im and /iþ1 m can the analysis moves away from the cracked section, the ten-

be determined as their linear interpolation, that is sile stress is progressively transferred from the steel rebar

M iþ1 i to the surrounding concrete and then the steel strain

m Mm

M m ¼ M im þ iþ1 i

ð/m /im Þ ð7Þ decreases; this results also in a decreased curvature of the

/m /m

generic section belonging to each sub-element.

and similarly the curvature /m relative to a given moment The remarks on the tension stiﬀening eﬀect outlined in

Mm within two known values Mi and Mi+1, is determined the previous section allow to be observed the increased

as stiﬀness of the sub-element lowers the axial strain of the

/iþ1 i generic section compared to the axial strain in the cracked

m /m

/m ¼ /im þ ðM m M im Þ ð8Þ section.

M m M im

iþ1

If, for the seek of simplicity, the stress of the tensile con-

In particular, the incremental ratio D/m/DMm in the crete, ect is neglected, an approach similar to the above

previous expression can be interpreted as the average ﬂex- discussed allows to deﬁne the axial strain of the generic sec-

ural tangential deformability of the sub-element; actually, tion belonging to the sub-element described by two consec-

as DMm tends to 0, the ratio D/m/DMm becomes the deriv- utive cracks. The average axial strain of the sub-element

ative of the curve / = /(M), that is can be obtained by averaging the axial strains of diﬀerent

908 E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916

K 33 ¼ ð17Þ

approximate approach, the axial strain for the generic sec- ðaii ajj a2ij Þ

tion i belonging to the sub-element can be deﬁned as aii

K 66 ¼ ð18Þ

ðaii ajj a2ij Þ

es;i H aij

eo;i ¼ es;i h ð11Þ K 36 ¼ ð19Þ

h d c;m 2 ðaii ajj a2ij Þ

where dc,m represents the average neutral axis depth.

Via equilibrium the following mixed terms can be deduced:

The sub-element average axial strain can be then

obtained averaging the axial strains of the diﬀerent sec- ðajj aij Þ

K 32 ¼ K 35 ¼ ðK 33 þ K 66 Þ=L ¼ ð20Þ

tions, as follows: ½ðaii ajj a2ij Þ L

ðaii aij Þ

es;m H K 62 ¼ K 65 ¼ ðK 36 þ K 66 Þ=L ¼ ð21Þ

eo;m ¼ es;m h ½ðaii ajj a2ij Þ L

h d c;m 2

H Finally, from equilibrium and compatibility, the following

¼ es;m /m h ð12Þ translational stiﬀness are obtained:

2

K 22 ¼ K 55 ¼ K 25 ¼ ðK 23 þ K 26 Þ=L

Therefore, as already stated for the ﬂexural model, if the

axial load and the axial strain at the ith step are deﬁned as ðaii þ ajj 2aij Þ

¼ ð22Þ

Ni and eio;m , while Ni+1 and eiþ1

o;m are the axial load and the ½ðaii ajj a2ij Þ L2

axial strain at next step, the average axial tangential defor-

mability of the sub-element can be deﬁned as To these stiﬀness coeﬃcients, those relative to extensional

terms must be added. In a similar way, applying the prin-

iþ1

eo;m eio;m ciple of virtual work, the extensional strain coeﬃcients of

fmN ¼ ð13Þ

N iþ1 N i the element are calculated and the stiﬀness coeﬃcients

afterwards.

2.3. Stiﬀness matrix element’s

3. Special elements and detailing formulation

In order to evaluate the stiﬀness matrix of the element,

the ﬂexural and axial tangential deformability of the sub- 3.1. The ﬁxed-end rotation model

element within two subsequent cracks have been deﬁned;

in particular, average ﬂexural and axial deformability (or The proposed joint model is governed by the slippage

stiﬀness) are the following: between the anchored rebar and concrete, while the stiﬀ-

ness of the panel is assumed as inﬁnite and, therefore, does

d/m dM m not aﬀect the joint deformability. The slip of steel rebars at

fmM ¼ kM

m ¼ ð14Þ

dM m d/m the joint–element (i.e., beam or column) interface is evalu-

de o;m dN m ated by a procedure similar to that above described for the

fmN ¼ k Nm ¼ ð15Þ

dN m deo;m ﬂexural model; a force equilibrium equation (3) for the

rebar and a compatibility equation (4) between steel rebar

Within the considered uncracked element intervals, the

and concrete in tension control the problem. The strain of

average ﬂexural and axial stiﬀness are deﬁned by the corre-

the element can be obtained if the boundary conditions in

sponding quantities evaluated assuming the concrete gross

terms of steel strains are provided in the two end sections of

section.

rebar.

Each term belonging to the stiﬀness matrix can be eval-

In the section at the interface between joint and beam

uated starting by the ﬂexibility coeﬃcients of the corre-

element, x = Lh the boundary condition is obtained using

sponding auxiliary beam. The generic ﬂexibility

the equilibrium equations (1) and (2) and considering the

coeﬃcient can be evaluated applying the principle of vir-

section s part of the element; in the section, x = 0

tual work; in particular, for the rotational coeﬃcient it

the boundary conditions depends on the behaviour of the

results:

anchorage detailing (see Fig. 4). From a theoretical point

Z

M iM j of view, in this section, two limit boundary conditions

aij ¼ dx ð16Þ can be identiﬁed:

L kM

m

where L is the element’s length, Mi and Mj are the moments • if the anchorage is not present, straight rebar is charac-

diagrams evaluated on the auxiliary element with ith and terized by a free end, thus a unrestricted slippage occurs,

jth unitary action, while k M

m is the actual average ﬂexural so that es = 0;

tangential stiﬀness of the sub-element, as previously stated. • if anchorage is rigid, slip at the inner end of the rebar is

The compatibility conditions provide the following stiﬀ- equal to zero s = 0, and a steel stress develops on the

ness matrix rotational terms: anchoring device.

E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916 909

Commonly, anchorage devices have a stress–slip shear strength of the element is noted, due to a decreasing

response that lies between the above boundaries, so that or absent shear resistant mechanisms in the concrete.

both slip and steel strain are not zero and are dependent The inﬂuence of shear forces on the behaviour of the

upon the response of the end anchorage. In particular, beams was modelled by Priestley et al. [11]; such model is

when the rebar is terminated with an end hook, the steel based on a reduction of the shear strength depending on

element can be treated as composed by the hook plus the the local ductility, expressed in terms of curvature varying

straight portion [13]. with a linear trend. The introduced model represents an

The steel–concrete interaction in the straight region is improvement of Priestley’s because it enables the sectional

described by the s–s bond law, while the hook can be mod- ductility at any step of the analysis to be directly deter-

elled as a translational non-linear spring whose behaviour mined and then the shear strength of those sections located

is governed by the stress–slip, rs,h–sh relationship [14] com- in the plastic regions to be evaluated. Therefore, along with

puted in the common section between the hook and the predicting ductile (i.e., ﬂexural) and brittle (i.e., shear)

straight part, as depicted in Fig. 4. failures, this method allows to determine also failures char-

Therefore, for the generic ﬂexural moment in the inter- acterized by low ductility due to the bending–shear interac-

face section, it is possible to calculate the end rotation h tion (see Fig. 5).

related to slip sj as Usually, the shear capacity of a frame element is given

sj by three terms regarded as independent: a concrete compo-

h¼ ð23Þ nent Vc which is function of the section ductility level, a

h dc

compression strength component Vp and ﬁnally a Vs

where dc represents the neutral axis depth, sj is the slip of component, whose extent is function of the transverse

steel rebars and h is the eﬀective depth of the cross-section, reinforcement quantity. So

respectively, in the joint–element interface section.

V ¼VcþVpþVs ð24Þ

Once the M–h function is known, the joint deformability

can be computed. This can be done by considering the The concrete resistance component Vc, valid both for circu-

beam–column intersection as a rotational non-linear spring lar and rectangular elements, decreases as ductility in-

whose behaviour is represented by the M–h relationship. creases, according to following equation:

The model proposed for the joint can also be used for the

interfacial section between columns and footing; in this case, Flexural Response

the footing similarly to exterior joints of a RC plane frame.

Shear Force, V

Flexural Response

high shear forces, reﬁned models must be introduced to

evaluate the shear strength and take into account the ele- μφ=1

ments decreasing ﬂexural ductility due to shear interaction. Curvature ductility,, μφ

The shear strength of beam/column elements basically

depends on their ductility level. In plastic areas, decreasing Fig. 5. Bending–shear interaction: failures mode.

910 E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916

pﬃﬃﬃﬃ

Vc ¼c fc0 Ae ð25Þ imum strength; (d) the ﬁnal stage of the panel when the

failure is achieved and the residual strength remains con-

where c depends on section curvature ductility level, l/, stant. The main parameters of the model are

following a linear relationship, while Ae is the actual shear

strength area considered as 80% of the section’s geometric • initial stiﬀness of the uncracked wall, K1, obtained on

area only. average as Gwtwlw/hw, where Gw is the shear modulus

It is assumed that the presence of the axial load, N deter- obtained by the diagonal compressive test;

mines a shear strength mechanism due to the formation of • secant stiﬀness, K2, equal to the equivalent strut stiﬀness

a sloped compressed strut. Therefore, the shear strength Vp computed with the elastic modulus, Ew, equal to the

is given by the horizontal component of the diagonal com- modulus of the panel in diagonal direction and with

pression strength as the strut cross-section dimensions according to Main-

H dc stone [15];

Vp ¼N ð26Þ

2L • cracking load, Vcr that can be computed as the product

where H is the geometric section height, L is the length of of the shear strength, fws (obtained by the diagonal com-

column from the critical section to the point of contraﬂex- pressive test) with the plan dimensions of the panel,

ure, and dc is the neutral axis depth. Vp does not decrease fwstwlw;

with increasing ductility. • maximum load, Vmax equal to 1.3Vcr.

The transverse reinforcement, contribution, Asw, on

shear strength is based on a mechanism that does not The model is implemented by introducing a diagonal

decrease with increasing ductility. The shear strength is compressive strut.

then given by

4. Global stiﬀness matrix

Asw fyh h0

Vs ¼ cot b ð27Þ

s The models of diﬀerent elements, constituting the beam

0

where h is the distance between the outside edge of the stir- element and the column element, have been previously dis-

rups, s is the stirrups spacing and b is the slope of the com- cussed one by one; in particular, the ﬂexural and nodal ele-

pressed diagonal strut with respect to the centroid of the ments are serially jointed to form the beam or column

element. element. In this viewpoint, a ﬂexibility matrix of the

beam/column element can be deﬁned as the sum of the

3.3. Inﬁll model single sub-elements ﬂexibility matrix, i.e.

Felem ¼ Fflex þ Fjnt ð28Þ

Inﬁll walls can represent in some cases a crucial source

of strength for the structure. Their presence and high stiﬀ- where Fﬂex is the ﬂexibility matrix of the ﬂexural element,

ness can play an important role on the global response of while Fjnt is the ﬂexibility matrix of the nodal element.

the building and on the local performance of RC elements. It is important to point out that the above stated matrix

The masonry panels are implemented introducing the varies within every loading step, for the non-linearities

model proposed by Fardis and Panagiotakos [12] that associated with the moment-curvature, or the moment-

correlate the shear force V on the inﬁll wall, with the hori- rotation, and involves some variations in elements charac-

zontal displacement D (see Fig. 6). In the resultant diagram teristics. Therefore, the matrix represents the tangential

four diﬀerent segments can be analyzed which represent ﬂexibility matrix of the beam/column element.

respectively: (a) the initial shear behaviour of the According to the process shown so far, the stiﬀness

uncracked panel; (b) the equivalent strut behaviour of the matrix of each beam or column element can be deduced;

cracked panel; (c) the instability of the panel over its max- in particular, for what it may concern columns, the geomet-

V

Δ

V Vmax

K2

Vcr

hw K3=(0.5%-10%)K1

K1

lw Vres =(5%-10%)Vmax

E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916 911

ric stiﬀness matrix is considered as well. The whole struc- The residual section deformations are the errors made in

ture stiﬀness matrix can be formally drawn with respect the linearization of the section force–deformation relation-

to the stiﬀness method as follows: ship. The residual section deformation are integrated along

X the element to obtain the residual element deformations

Kstruct ¼ ðKbeam þ Kcol Þ ð29Þ

elem

sj=1. The residual section deformation and the residual ele-

ment deformation are determined but the corresponding

where Kstruct is the whole structure matrix, Kbeam represents

deformation vectors are not updated. The presence of

the beam element matrix while Kcol represents the column

residual element deformation violates the compatibility of

element matrix.

the element. In order to restore the element compatibility

corrective forces DQj¼2 ¼ Kj¼1 el s

j¼1

must be applied at

5. Solution algorithm j¼1

the ends of the element, where Kel is the updated element

tangent stiﬀness matrix. A corresponding section force

In a ﬁnite element that is based on the stiﬀness method

increment DDj¼2 ¼ bKj¼1 el s

j¼1

is determined inducing sec-

of analysis the section deformations are obtained directly

tion deformation increment—f j¼1 bKj¼1 el s

j¼1

.

from the element’s end deformations by the deformation

Thus, in the next iteration j the state of the element

interpolation function; the corresponding section resisting

change as Qj=2 = Qj=1 + DQj=2 and the section forces

forces are determined from the section force–deformation

Dj=2 = Dj=1 + DDj=2 and deformations dj=2 = dj=1 + Ddj=2

relationship. The integral of the section resisting forces

are updated, where Ddj¼2 ¼ rj¼1 f j¼1 bKj¼1 elem s

j¼1

.

over the element length yields the element resisting forces.

Convergence is achieved when the selected convergence

In a ﬁnite element that is based on the ﬂexibility method,

criterion is satisﬁed. The presented non-linear analysis

the ﬁrst step is the determination of the element forces from

method oﬀers several advantages. Equilibrium along the

the current element deformation using the stiﬀness matrix.

element is always strictly satisﬁed, since the section forces

Thus, the force interpolation function yields the section

are derived from the element force by the force interpola-

forces. The ﬁrst problem is the determination of the section

tion functions. While equilibrium and compatibility are

deformation from the given section force, since the non-lin-

satisﬁed along the element the section force–deformation

ear section force–deformation is commonly expressed as an

is only satisﬁed within a speciﬁed tolerance when the con-

explicit function of section deformation; another problem

vergence is achieved. When all elements have converged

arises from the fact that changes in the section stiﬀness pro-

the ith Newton–Raphson iteration is complete. The ele-

duce a new element stiﬀness matrix which change the ele-

ment force vectors are assembled to form the updated

ment forces for the given deformation. These problems

structure resisting forces. The new structure stiﬀness matrix

are solved in Taucer et al. [16] by a special non-linear solu-

is formed by assembling the current element stiﬀness

tion method.

matrix. The structure resisting forces are compared with

At the ith Newton–Raphson iteration it is necessary to

the total applied load. If the diﬀerences is not within the

determine the element resisting forces for the current ele-

speciﬁed tolerance, a new Newton–Raphson iteration

ment deformation:

begins.

qi ¼ qi1 þ Dqi ð30Þ

To this end an iterative process denoted by j is introduced 6. A numerical–experimental comparison

inside the Newton–Raphson iteration. With the initial

element tangent stiﬀness matrix Kj=0 = Ki1 and the given In order to give an example of the capabilities of the

element deformation increments Dqi the corresponding ele- proposed model a numerical–experimental comparison is

ment force increments are presented; the experimental reference is a full-scale RC

building, designed according to criteria and construction

DQj¼1 ¼ Kj¼0

el Dq

j¼1

ð31Þ methods used in the last 40 years [17] in a large part of

j=1

The section force increments DD can be determined South Europe and tested in the laboratory of the Joint

from the force interpolation function. With the section ﬂex- Research Center of Ispra.

ibility matrix f j=0 = fi1 the linearization of the section In particular, pseudo-dynamic tests on two full-scale RC

force–deformation relationship (moment-curvature) yields frames (having the same structure, materials and geometry

the section increments: but one with inﬁll walls and one without) have been per-

formed (Fig. 7). Numerical–experimental comparisons on

Ddj¼1 ¼ f j¼0 DDj¼1 ð32Þ

both of them allowed assessing the feasibility of the pro-

The section deformations are updated d = d + Ddj.

j j1

posed model with reference to the non-linear behaviour

According to the section force–deformation relationship of RC frames and to the interaction problems between

section deformations dj correspond to resisting forces the RC elements and the masonry panels.

Dj¼1

R and a new tangent ﬂexibility matrix f j=1 . The frame was designed for gravity loads and lateral

The section unbalanced forces Dj¼1 u ¼ Dj¼1 Dj¼1

R are forces equal to about 8% of its mass. The structure has four

determined and they are then transformed to residual ﬂoors, typical ﬂoor height of 2.70 m and 3 spans; two of

section deformations rj¼1 ¼ f j¼1 Dj¼1

u . them are 5.00 m long, while the third has a length equal

912 E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916

to 2.50 m. The beam layout is the same at each ﬂoor, with 6.1. The bare frame

equal cross-section and reinforcement, with a slab thick-

ness of 15 cm. The columns have rectangular cross-sec- The comparison with experimental results shows that

tions, constant dimensions along the height and placed the use of a bond slip model signiﬁcantly improves the

along their weak axis. prediction capacity over the use of rigid bond model, but

The inﬁll frame has wall panels in each span (Fig. 7). In several analyses [9] highlight that much of this diﬀerence

particular, on each span the openings are located as derives from bond–slip in the foundations and in the beam

follows: column joints, respect to beam column elements, as demon-

strated also by others authors [19].

• left span: windows openings with dimensions of In this direction a comparison between the results

1.20 · 1.10 m at each of the four levels; obtained by applying the proposed model and the experi-

• central span: door opening with dimension of mental curves is proposed in Fig. 9, which depicts the story

2.00 · 1.90 m and windows openings at the other levels shear versus the interstorey drift. Two diﬀerent numerical

with dimensions of 2.00 · 1.00 m; analyses have been carried out, graphically shown using

• right span: no openings. two diﬀerent color curves: the grey curve represents the

numerical result obtained through a rigid joint hypothesis

In order to verify the potentialities of the proposed not including the ﬁxed-end rotation eﬀect, while the black

model the experimental pseudo-dynamic tests are simu- one is obtained through a strained joint hypothesis includ-

lated assuming in approximate way that the push-over ing the ﬁxed-end rotation eﬀect.

analysis results are similar to the envelope of the cyclic test. If the joint is assumed to be stiﬀ, the prediction of both

The push-over analysis has been developed using the pro- strength and tangent stiﬀness overestimate the experimen-

posed numerical model and applying a pre-deﬁned distri- tal results, while when the deformability of the joint is con-

bution of horizontal forces; in particular, the distribution sidered allows a very satisfactory agreement with test is

has been selected in order to model the ﬁrst linear mode achieved. The graph shows the numerical outcomes for a

of vibration. concrete strain in compression up to ec = 0.5%.

The gravity loads, applied on the frames during the This result highlights the large inﬂuence of the ﬁxed-end

tests, have been deﬁned simulating dead and live load. In rotation on the local and global behaviour of the structure.

Fig. 8 load values [18] are reported in order to perform In particular, for low values of the story shear the two

the frame analysis; the uniform loads on the beams and curves are overlapped; in fact, the low ﬂexural moment at

the point loads on the top of the columns represent a the end of beam–column elements supplies, in the hypoth-

scheme of the loads really applied on the tested frame. esis of deformable joint (black curve), a low slip demand in

E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916 913

12.7 kN/m

44.3 kN 76.1 kN 60.2 kN 28.4 kN

2.70 m

15.1 kN/m

56.4 kN 88.2 kN 72.3 kN 40.5 kN

2.70 m

15.1 kN/m

56.4 kN 88.2 kN 72.3 kN 40.5 kN

2.70 m

15.1 kN/m

56.4 kN 88.2 kN 72.3 kN 40.5 kN

2.70 m

200 200

100 100

drift [mm] drift [mm]

0 0

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-100 -100

-200 -200

with fixed end rotation with fixed end rotation

without fixed end rotation -300 without fixed end rotation

-300

150

100

100

50

50

drift [mm] drift [mm]

0 0

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-50

-50

-100

-100

-150 with fixed end rotation

with fixed end rotation

without fixed end rotation

-200 without fixed end rotation -150

the tensile reinforcement and therefore a low joint defor- 6.2. The inﬁll frame

mation. As the story shear increases, the black curve shows

a lower stiﬀness, as consequence of an increasing joint The interaction between inﬁll walls and RC members

deformability, and it is in agreement with the experiments. can be seen to behave as something in between a shear

In all cases, the numerical analyses appear to agree with the panel and a diagonal strut [20]. The boundary stress are

lab evidence. very diﬀerent for those two cases: in the latter, the reaction

914 E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916

N N Linear model

SHear model M

V SH-L

Axial deformation

N

Non-Linear model

SH-NL

M

N Axial deformation

N N

Linear model

STrut model M

V ST-L

Axial deformation

N Non-Linear model

ST-NL

M

N Axial deformation

of the wall panel aﬀects the axial loads of both columns was studied using the ﬂexural model discussed in Section

and beams; in the former, the axial loads do not change. 2.1 while the axial behaviour is modelled considering two

This means that the choice of an appropriate model repre- diﬀerent hypotheses: using the model described in Section

sents a crucial step toward a reliable assessment of the 2.2 (non-linear model), that allows evaluating the non-lin-

frame characterized by the interaction between bare struc- earities depending on section cracking and reinforcement

ture and inﬁll walls. In order to validate this opinion, a the- yielding, and using a simple linear model (linear model)

oretical–experimental comparison was carried out on the with a constant axial stiﬀness during the incremental

inﬁll frame tested at Ispra. The RC elements of the frame analysis. The masonry panels were analyzed by a model

ST-NL

ST-NL 600 ST-L

600

ST-L

SH-NL SH-NL

400 SH-L 400

SH-L

200 200

drift [mm] drift [mm]

0 0

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600

-800 -800

300

ST-NL 400 ST-NL

ST-L ST-L

SH-NL SH-NL

200

SH-L 200 SH-L

100

drift [mm] drift [mm]

0 0

-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

-100

-200

-200

-400

-300

-600 -400

Fig. 11. Numerical simulation of inﬁlled frame: eﬀect of models on frame drift.

E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916 915

ST-NL

600 600 ST-L

SH-NL

400 400 SH-L

200 200

axial displacement [mm] axial displacement [mm]

0 0

-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00

-200 -200

-400 -400

ST-NL

-600 ST-L -600

SH-NL

-800 SH-L -800

ST-NL

600 600 ST-L

SH-NL

400 400 SH-L

200 200

axial displacement [mm] axial displacement [mm]

0 0

-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00

-200 -200

-400 -400

ST-NL

-600 ST-L -600

SH-NL

-800 SH-L -800

Fig. 12. Numerical simulation of inﬁlled frame: eﬀect of models on column response.

implementing that proposed by Fardis and Panagiotakos bars change the bond mechanism. The axial deformability

[12]; in particular, both shear and strut models were used of elements inﬂuencing the interaction between frames and

for the panels. The basic hypotheses are summarized in inﬁll walls is also taken into account. The joint model

Fig. 10. allows considering the contribution of the ﬁxed-end rota-

Fig. 11 shows a comparison between the model out- tion when straight and/or hook ends are present.

comes and the experimental curves, in terms of story shear Overall the model allows for the assessment of the seis-

versus the interstorey drift. It highlights how diﬀerent mic capacity of underdesigned RC structures, where

approaches provided similar global results, while the diﬀer- smooth bars, non-linearities for low levels of load, low

ence emerges at high levels, where the strut model gives lar- quality of constructive details and consequent potential

ger values than the shear one in terms of deformability. for brittle failure modes require sophisticated tools for

This is due to diﬀerent column axial loads in the two mod- the numerical simulation.

els, which is more evident at high ﬂoors where low gravity The previous numerical–experimental comparisons show

loads lower the axial stress. the model’s potentialities and how it is able to highlight

All this is expressed in Fig. 12 where story shear versus strains and strengths of frames subjected to extensive

axial displacements are reported for the exterior columns non-linear behaviour of elements. As regards the inﬂuence

of the ﬁrst two ﬂoors. It shows how the predictions of of joint deformability on global behaviour of structure, the

the shear model do not ﬁt the experimental evidence; the model superbly simulates the strain increasing due to the

adoption of a linear axial model rather than a non-linear ﬁxed-end rotation, as the ISPRA test points out.

one does not make a great diﬀerence. On the other hand, The proposed model can be used in the push-over analy-

the strut model allow for a good agreement with experi- sis under seismic loading of reinforced concrete buildings

mental records; the choice of a non-linear axial model where the structure is subjected to an incremental static

results in a excellent simulation which is able to reproduce analysis under a pre-deﬁned pattern of horizontal forces.

the non-linear behaviour of the columns due to the interac-

tion with inﬁll walls and to the decrease of axial load under References

horizontal actions.

[1] RC frames under earthquake loading—state of the art report. CEB

7. Conclusions Bull 1996;231(May).

[2] Filippou FC, Issa A. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete frames

The paper describes a ﬁbre model proposed for the non- under cyclic load reversal. Report EERC 88/12. 1988.

[3] Monti G, Spacone E. Reinforced concrete ﬁber beam element with

linear analysis of RC frames. This model directly intro- bond slip. J Struct Eng 2000;126(6):654–61.

duces the s–s bond relationship; such aspect makes it very [4] Petrangeli M, Pinto PE, Ciampi V. Fiber element for cyclic bending

useful in the analysis of existing structures where smooth and shear of RC structures. I : theory. J Eng Mech 1999;125:9.

916 E. Cosenza et al. / Computers and Structures 84 (2006) 904–916

[5] Ghobarah A, Biddah A. Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete [13] Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Structural

frames including joint shear deformation. Eng Struct 1999;21(11): models of critical regions in old-type r.c. frames with smooth rebars.

971–87. Eng Struct 2004;26(14):2137–48.

[6] Ziyaeifara M, Noguchib H. A reﬁned model for beam elements and [14] Fabbrocino G, Verderame GM, Manfredi G. Experimental behav-

beam–column joints. Comput Struct 2000;76(4):551–64. iour of anchored smooth bars in old type r.c. buildings. Eng Struct

[7] Manfredi G, Pecce M. A reﬁned r.c. beam element including bond– 2005;27(10):1575–85.

slip relationship for the analysis of continuous beams. Comput Struct [15] Mainstone RJ. Supplementary note on the stiﬀness and strength of

1998;69. inﬁlled frames. Current paper CP13/74. Building Research Establish-

[8] Limkatanyu S, Spacone E. Reinforced concrete frame element with ment, London. 1974.

bond interface. II: state determinations and numerical validation. J [16] Taucer F, Spacone E, Filippou FC. A ﬁber beam–column element for

Struct Eng 2002;128(3):356–64. seismic response analysis of reinforced concrete structures. Report

[9] Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Verderame GM. Seismic assessment of EERC 91/17. 1991.

gravity load designed r.c. frames: critical issues in structural model- [17] Carvalho EC. Personal communication to icons—topic participants.

ing. J Earthquake Eng 2002;6(special issue 1). 1998.

[10] Eligehausen R, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Local bond-stress [18] Pinto A, Varum H. Dynamic nonlinear analyses for the-4 storey RC

relationships of deformed bars under generalized excitations. UCB/ frame bare, inﬁlled and retroﬁtted frames. Joint Research Centre-

EERC 83, 23, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Ispra, Safety in Structural Mechanics Unit Institute for Systems,

1983. Informatics and Safety European Commission. 1999.

[11] Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y. Seismic shear strength of [19] Limkatanyu S, Spacone E. Eﬀects of reinforcement slippage on the

reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng ASCE 1994;120(8): non-linear response under cyclic loadings of RC frame structures.

2310–29. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2003;32(15):2407–24.

[12] Fardis MN, Panagiotakos TB. Seismic design and response of bare [20] Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Michailidis CN. Analytical models for

and masonry-inﬁlled reinforced concrete buildings Part II, inﬁlled brick masonry inﬁlled r.c. frames under lateral loading. J Earthquake

structures. J Earthquake Eng 1997;1(3):475–503. Eng 1998;2(1):59–87.

- Lab Report1Uploaded byÉllvis Euugênio
- Hillerborg Strip MethodUploaded byKreen132
- Finite-Element Design of Concrete Structures,2nd_By G.a. RombachUploaded byMario A Villada Ríos
- Finite-element Design of Concrete Structures, 2nd RombachUploaded byCristi Andone
- New Design of CompositesUploaded byAshishvajir
- GB3GB4GB5AUploaded bycheligp1981
- ASD-Insert Plate CheckUploaded byJvv Gudboy
- Glulam curved beam design to EC5Uploaded byBurak Kırcal
- BE Sem III Civil Engg Strength of MaterialsUploaded bysachin22221
- Combined Hardening P406Uploaded byparam
- Analysis on the Leveling Capacity of an 11 RollersUploaded byLeandro Sousa
- [Design of Composite Materials and StructuresUploaded bycataice
- Richard Garrison Material Science Lab 1Uploaded byRich Garr
- 2668Uploaded byAnonymous 0GmaK60S
- The Effect of Plasticity in Crumpling of Thin SheetsUploaded byapollo2991
- revista journal aciUploaded byJorge Cifuentes
- ProbaUploaded byfilipbarisic4
- 6 2 Shearing StressesUploaded byMohd Danial H
- 1_De ClerckUploaded byAnonymous YgEKXgW
- Module 07 - Plastic Analysis of BeamsUploaded bySameera Jayaratne
- ME AfternoonUploaded byPrabhu Charan Teja
- UNIT 1 lecture 1_DEF_v1 2@pageUploaded bymarcoghiglia
- 1ch1 NotesUploaded byBara Salah
- FFFEABEDd01Uploaded byViet Duc Dang
- Illam_KarfokUploaded byVirat Koili
- 135343785-ME2254-SM-QBUploaded byhodvmkvecauto
- materiales compuestosUploaded byMiguel Angel Rebollo
- 151Uploaded byParamveer Rawat
- compressionpdf-111008060751-phpapp02Uploaded bysrikanthgali
- docx.docxUploaded byAhmadAliAKbarPhambra

- WCEE2012_4416Uploaded byakanyilmaz
- 33-67-1-RV.pdfUploaded byakanyilmaz
- Low-cycle FatigueUploaded byakanyilmaz
- Optimum Design of Cold- Formed Steel Channel Beams Using Micro Genetic AlgorithmUploaded byakanyilmaz
- Priestley Calvi y KowalskyUploaded byalexsdiaz
- Advanced Technology and Research Brochure 2012Uploaded byakanyilmaz
- Braced FramesUploaded byRoscii Rulez
- Features of Research ProfessionalUploaded byakanyilmaz
- What's New in Strand7 R24Uploaded byakanyilmaz
- 31573-2011 Wp Cooperation Energy Amended EnUploaded byakanyilmaz
- 2006 CIBW18 Seismic Behaviour FactorUploaded byakanyilmaz
- Moment CurvatureUploaded byakanyilmaz

- SESOC-AnchorBoltsUploaded byFabrizio Biserna
- 215R_74Uploaded byJuan Gonzales
- ME StrEnggUploaded byMurthy Guna
- Unit Lab RmsaUploaded byDouglas Beach
- Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Steel Fiber ReinforcedUploaded byhaniaboobacker
- Studies on Metakaolin Based Coir Fibre Reinforced ConcreteUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Structural NotesUploaded byGerald GeCu Cuñado
- Effects of Confinement on Interaction Diagrams of SquareUploaded byMarlon Martinez
- Effect of Corrosion on Concrete Reinforcement Mechanical and Physical-2Uploaded byIAEME Publication
- Effect of Replacement of Cement by Silica FumeUploaded byAnonymous g1LSaA
- 2011-10-05 Section Analysis Program Response 2000Uploaded byadc26
- Testing of Fiber Reinforced ConcreteUploaded byGurbir
- 4 Design Considerations for Steel Fiber Reinforced ConcreteUploaded bysochiva pramesti
- University of Cape TownUploaded byPuneet Kaura
- 1679-7825-lajss-14-07-01200.pdfUploaded byRodolfo Shamá
- 1 4 6 Design Illustration Concrete Bridge DesignUploaded byJared Makori
- COMPARATIVE STUDY OF COST AND RISK MANAGEMENT IN RCC AND PREFABRICATED BUILDINGUploaded byParag Pal
- 210.pdfUploaded byupnishda
- Sample - Tender Analysis on Major Items ComparisonUploaded byfeeza
- asdftUploaded bydrp
- Size Effect on Shear Strength of Beams With FRP BarsUploaded byalexrem
- Sfakianakis, M.G. Biaxial bending 2001.pdfUploaded byAnonymous r1H8sySzPX
- CD1- Introductory Concepts.pptxUploaded bycharles gueta
- Prestressed Concrete Analysis and Design Antoine NaamanUploaded byMarvin Josué
- 1 Armarea Elementelor de Constructii Cu Plase Sudate_ENGUploaded byVictoria Tozlovanu
- Analysis and Design of SlabsUploaded byricardo
- Utah DOT Pile Design DocUploaded byAurva Kapoor
- chloride content of fresh concreteUploaded byAlan Kirby
- CERM Table of ContentsUploaded byJohn Doe
- IP0439 SOTO E CorrectionsUploaded byoscarariagna