EFFECT OF DAMPING MODELLING

ON RESULTS OF TIME-HISTORY
ANALYSIS OF R.C. BRIDGES

Nigel Priestley, Michele Calvi,

Lorenza Petrini, Claudio Maggi
IUSS/University of Pavia
 3. INITIAL STIFFNESS DESIGN
DISPLACEMENT-EQUIVALENCE RULES

Basic Tenet: Displacement of designed inelastic structure can be

related to the elastic displacement of the initial-stiffness model by
a displacement-equivalence rule
Equal disp.
e.g. Newmark and Hall, 1982:
elastic Equal energy
T=0: “Equal acceleration”

Strength
equal acc
T>0.5s: “Equal displacement”
T˜ 0.2s: “Equal energy” inelastic

Displacement
Design Codes from different
countries use different rules
 INFLUENCE OF ELASTIC DAMPING ON
DISPLACEMENT-EQUIVALENCE RULE
Displacement-equivalence rules are based on Inelastic Time History
Analysis (ITHA). The representation of the initial response has a
considerable influence on the results:
“Elastic damping” is typically added to represent the initial
stages,and expressed as a % of critical damping – typically 5%.
There are two main ways this could be modelled: as initial-stiffness
proportional damping, or tangent-stiffness proportional damping:

Tangent stiffness:
Initial-stiffness: damping force reduces
damping always when stiffness reduces;
proportional to this increases when
slope stiffness increases

19
 SDOF MODEL
F

&& + c∆& + k∆ = −ma

m∆ g
kinitial
c = 2mωξ = 2ξ mk
∆

Initial Stiffness damping: Constant Coefficient c, k=kinitial

Tangent Stiffness damping: Damping coefficient varies in
proportion to instantaneous stiffness: ck/kinitial
Note: Peak displacement decreases as c increases

MOST ANALYSES USE CONSTANT COEFFICIENT DAMPING

 REASONS FOR ELASTIC DAMPING

• LINEAR HYSTERESIS RULE UP TO FIRST YIELD: No

representation of hysteretic damping in the elastic range
• FOUNDATION DAMPING: Soil flexibility, nonlinearity and
radiation damping generally not modelled in analysis
• NON-STRUCTURAL DAMPING: Hysteretic response of non-
structural elements; relative movement between structural and
non-structural elements may provide an effective damping force
DISCUSSION OF REASONS FOR ELASTIC DAMPING

HYSTERESIS RULE: These are normally calibrated to model the

full hysteretic response in the non-linear range. Therefore the
“elastic” damping should stop after yield
FOUNDATION DAMPING: After structural yield, the foundation
forces remain essentially constant as structure deforms
inelastically. Therefore foundation damping should cease.
NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS: Contribution is generally small
(less than 1%) (particularly for bridges).

CONCLUSION: TANGENT-STIFFNESS DAMPING

IS MOST APPROPRIATE
(OTANI, 1981)
 2000 2000

1000 1000

Damping Force (kN)

Initial-Stiffness
Stiffness Force (kN)

0 0 Damping Ad=0.83Ah

-1000 -1000

-2000 -2000

-0.1 0 0.1 -0.1 0 0.1

Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
SDOF, T=0.5 sec
(a) Analysis with Initial Stiff ness Damping
FORCED SINUSOIDAL
INPUT OF T=1.0sec
2000 2000

1000 1000 TAKEDA HYSTERESIS

Damping Force (kN)
Stiffness Force (kN)

Tangent-Stiffness
0 0

Damping Ad=0.15Ah
-1000 -1000

-2000 -2000

-0.1 0 0.1 -0.1 0 0.1

Displacement (m) Displacement (m)

(b) Analysis with Tangent Stiffness Damping

 RESPONSE OF SDOF MODEL, T=0.5sec
TO 1.5*EL CENTRO 1940 NS

0.15

Tangent Stiffness
∆max,TS=1.43∆max,IS
0.1

Initial Stiffness
Displacement (m)

0.05

-0.05

-0.1

0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (seconds)
EXAMPLES OF HYSTERETIC MODELS USED
TO TEST “EQUAL-DISPLACEMENT”

TAKEDA BILINEAR E-P FLAG-SHAPE

 TAKEDA HYSTERESIS
2.4 2.4 2.4
TS

Displacement Ratio (∆/∆elastic)

2 2 2

1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 IS R=6

TS

1.2 TS 1.2 IS 1.2

IS
0.8 0.8 0.8

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (seconds) Period (seconds) Period (seconds)

(a) r = 0.002

2.4 2.4 2.4

Displacement Ratio (∆/∆elastic)

TS
2 2 2 TS

1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

IS
1.2 TS 1.2 1.2
IS

0.8 IS 0.8 0.8

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (seconds) Period (seconds) Period (seconds)

(b) r = 0.05
 BILINEAR ELASTO-PLASTIC
2.4 2.4 2.4

Displacement Ratio (∆/∆elastic) 2 2 2

TS

1.6 R=2 1.6 TS R=4 1.6 IS R=6

TS IS
1.2 1.2 1.2
IS

0.8 0.8 0.8

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (seconds) Period (seconds) Period (seconds)

(a) r = 0.002

2.4 2.4 2.4

Displacement Ratio (∆/∆elastic)

2 2 2 TS

1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

TS
1.2 TS 1.2 1.2

0.8 IS 0.8 IS 0.8 IS

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (seconds) Period (seconds) Period (seconds)

(b) r = 0.05
 FLAG HYSTERESIS
2.4 2.4 2.4

Displacement Ratio (∆/∆elastic)

2 2 TS 2 TS

1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

IS
TS IS
1.2 1.2 1.2

IS
0.8 0.8 0.8

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (seconds) Period (seconds) Period (seconds)

(a) β = 0.35

2.4 2.4 2.4

TS
Displacement Ratio (∆/∆elastic)

2 2 2 TS

1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

IS
TS
1.2 1.2 1.2

IS
0.8 IS 0.8 0.8

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (seconds) Period (seconds) Period (seconds)

(b) β = 0 70
 TANGENT/INITIAL STIFFNESS DISPLACEMENT
RATIOS

1.5 1.5 2

R=6
Displacement Ratio ∆TS/∆IS

1.4 1.4 1.8 R=4

R=4 R=6
1.3 1.3 1.6 R=6
R=6
R=4
R=6
1.2 1.2 1.4
R=4

1.1 R=2 1.1 1.2

R=4 R=2

R=2
1 1 1

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (seconds) Period (seconds) Period (seconds)
(a) Takeda (dash:r=0.002, solid:r=0.05) (b) Bilinear (dash:r=0.002,solid:r=0.05) (c) Flag (dash:β=0.35,solid:β=0.70)

TAKEDA BILINEAR E-P FLAG

 SHAKE-TABLE TESTS ON BRIDGE PIERS

• Static test to calibrate Takeda hysteresis rule

• Chose accelerogram to emphasize difference
between initial and tangent stiffness response
•Dynamic test with high ductility demand
 186 cm

MODEL DIMENSIONS
Deck mass
G f’c = 39MPa
88 cm

fy = 514MPa
Column Mass = 7.8tonnes
Spiral Ø6
200 cm

45 cm
156 cm

28 cm
288 cm

Spiral Ø6/6 cm

18Ø10
50 cm

Spiral Ø6/3 cm Pier cross-section

88 cm

Footing
 STATIC TEST + SEISMOSTRUCT SIMULATION
100

80

60

40

20
Force [kN]

0
-0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
-20

-40

-60

SeismoStruct simulation
-80
Experimental test
-100
Displacement [m]
 STATIC TEST + TAKEDA SIMULATION

100

80

60

40

20
Force [kN]

0
-0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
-20

-40

-60
Experimental test
-80 Ruaumoko simulation

-100
Displacement [m]
 1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4
Acceleration [g]

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2

-1.6
Time [s]
MORGAN HILL RECORD SCALED TO 1.2g PGA
VIDEO
 DYNAMIC TEST + TAKEDA SIMULATION
0.15
Tangent Stiffness
0.1
Experiment
Displacement (m)

0.05 Initial Stiffness

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
 DYNAMIC TEST + SEISMOSTRUCT SIMULATION

0.15

Experiment
0.1
Tangent-Stiffness

Initial Stiffness
Displacement (m)

0.05

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
 DYNAMIC TEST + SEISMOSTRUCT SIMULATION
0.15

0.1 Experiment
No damping
Displacement (m)

0.05

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (sec)
PEAK DISPLACEMENTS, INITIAL 10.2sec

Positive Peak Negative Peak

(mm) (mm)
Experiment 110 109

SeismoStruct 99 108
0% damping

Takeda 114 112

Tangent-Stiff.
Takeda 60 74
Initial-Stiff.
 CONCLUSIONS

• Common sense indicates that initial-stiffness is

inappropriate for elastic damping
• If tangent-stiffness is appropriate for elastic
damping, then the “equal-displacement” approximation
is non-conservative
• Shake-table testing supports tangent-stiffness
proportional damping for Takeda modelling