You are on page 1of 2


Discussion by Christian Meyer,4 M. ASCE, Joseph E. J. Lee,5 and Magdy S. L. Roufaiel5 The authors have presented an interesting approach toward definition of damage of reinforced concrete members subjected to severe seismic loads. The real usefulness of this approach is not as apparent from studying this paper, as it is from Ref. 2, where the first author has developed a probabilistic failure theory which can be used to compute the reliability of concrete buildings in a seismic environment. The writers have studied the same problem using a mathematical beam model which takes into account the finite size of the plastic regions (22,23), unlike the authors' model where all plastic deformations are taking place within concentrated plastic hinges. There are a number of disadvantages associated with concentrated plastic hinge models, some of which the authors have enumerated in their introduction. One major drawback not mentioned is the need to calibrate the Takeda-type moment-rotation relationship against known test results, such as the loaddeflection curve of a cantilever beam. The required availability of such test data severely limits the usefulness of the model in practical application. For the model of the writers, only elementary constitutive relationships for the component materials steel and concrete are needed to derive moment-curvature relationships, using equations of elementary reinforced concrete theory only (23). These are then enhanced with some Takeda-type rules governing the cyclic behavior of RC members. Of the 32 test examples analyzed by the authors, the writers have reanalyzed the beams designated as R-4 and R-6 using their model. Table 3 summarizes the damage parameters obtained by the two different models. Some of the larger discrepancies can be attributed to different definitions of the various damage parameters, primarily because the normalizing quantities are different, such as the yield rotation. In a plastic hinge model, the rotation ductility, for example, is defined simply as

(MyL\ \6El)


When considering the finite size of the plastic regions, it is more ap"September, 1981, by Hooshang Banon, John M. Biggs, and H. Max Irvine (Proc. Paper 16496). 4 Assoc. Prof, of Civ. Engrg., Dept. of Civ. Engrg. & Engrg. Mechanics, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. 10027. 5 Grad. Research Asst, Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Engrg. Mechanics, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 10027.

Downloaded 29 Sep 2011 to Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.or

7 24.. APPENDIX. 287 . Dec. in simulation studies.7 187. "Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frames for Dynamic Loading.TABLE 3. overall. the two mathematical models lead to rather comparable results.9 70." Technical Report No. M0 = My (1 .0 14. 1981. C . = length of plastic region at node i. M.9 9. and Meyer.. Mar. Columbia University.. L. This comparison is very encouraging because it indicates that the writers' model gives reliable response results. e. NSF-PFR-7924695-C Dept. the average increase in effort for structure stiffness updates and reductions is presumably only marginal.9 FDR (5) 14.7 m (4) 17. and Meyer. plastic hinges come and go. Arzoumanidis. Roufaiel. The model with finite plastic regions requires somewhat larger computational effort than the plastic hinge models.0 160.x/L) = moment diagram when the beam ends are subjected to yield moments My. of Civil Engineering.4 98.4 NCR (6) 45. G. Columbia University. S. and x.g. without being subject to the previously mentioned constraints.9 10. "Modeling Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Cyclic Loads.. especially if the considerable uncertainties associated with the cyclic response of RC members is taken into account.0 205 182 b "Model of the writers.5 8.—Damage Parameters of Selected Test Beams Beam (1) R-4 R-6 Model (2) Plastic Region* Plastic Hinge* Plastic Region" Plastic Hinge b m (3) 27. Dept. the agreement will probably even be better. But in realistic building frames subjected to strong ground motions. (x) = EI/(EI)n is the ratio of elastic to inelastic flexural stiffness: M(x) = moment diagram associated with maximum beam deformation." Technical Report No. propriate to define rotation ductility as M-9 = 1 + 'Jo r Q{(M-M0)dx (10) Mndx in which Q.9 13.0 NDE (7) 76.6 8.1 10. of Civil Engineering. Model of the authors. If some of the statistical uncertainties are incorporated. The results of Table 3 indicate that. C. NSF-PFR-79246 CU-3. 1981.1 7. S. therefore.—REFERENCES 22.