Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Neuenhofer and Filippou 1997

    Uploaded by

    Jeff H
    14 views9 pages
    Paper on analysis techniques

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Paper on analysis techniques

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    14 views9 pages

    Neuenhofer and Filippou 1997

    Uploaded by

    Jeff H
    Paper on analysis techniques

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9
    EVALUATION OF NONLINEAR FRAME FINITE-ELEMENT MODELS By Ansgar Neuenhofer! and Filip C. Filippou Apstaact: In recent years nonlinear dynamic analysis of three-dimensional structural models is used more and more in the assessment of existing structures in zones of high seismic risk and in the development of ‘appropriate retrofit strategies, In this framework beam finite-element models of various degrees of sophistication fre used inthe description of the hysteretic behavior of structural components under a predominantly uniaxial State of stain and stress. These models are commonly derived with the displacement method of analysis, but recent studies have highlighted the benefits of frame models that are based on force interpolation functions (exibility approach). ‘These benefits derive from the fact that models with force interpolation functions that reproduce the variation of intemal element forces in a strict sense yield the exact solution of the governing equations in the absence of geometric nonlinearity. While the numerical implementation of force-based models fa first appears cumbersome, simple examples of nonlinear analysis in this paper offer conclusive proof of the ‘numerical and computational superiority of these models on account ofthe smaller number of model degrees Of freedom for the same degree of accuracy inthe global and local response. A numerical implementation that ‘bypasses the iterative nature ofthe element state determination i recent force-based elements is also introduced, thus further expanding the benefits of flexibility-based nonlinear frame models. INTRODUCTION Recent earthquakes have increased the interest in the de- velopment of reliable analytical methods of assessing. the slobal and local dynamic response of existing structures and, if necessary, developing effective retrofit strategies. In three- dimensional models of building and bridges, beam finite-ele- ‘ment models are important in describing the hysteretic behav- jor of structural components under # predominantly uniaxial stress state. Since the nonlinear dynamic analysis and damage assessment of large three-dimensional structural models under earthquake loading are computationally very costly, the pro- jection of the three-dimensional structural member into a one- dimensional line element brings great benefits of economy without undue compromise of aceuracy for girders and col- ‘The most common approach in the formulation of nonlinear frame elements to date isthe displacement or stiffness method that is based on appropriate interpolation functions for the transverse and axial displacements of the member. Conven- tional frame elements are based on cubie Hermitian polyno- ‘mials forthe transverse displacement fields and linear Lagran- ian shape functions for the axial displacement, which represent the exact solution fora linear elastic, prismatic beam, ‘This formulation results in linear curvature and constant axial sirain along the element, but has well-known shortcomings in nonlinear analysis (Weiler 1990; Neuenhofer 1993). These imitations can be largely overcome with higher-order dis- placement interpolation functions in connection with internal element nodes (Weiler 1990; Nevenhofer 1993). ‘The formulation of flexibility-based elements, on the other hhand, is based on interpolation functions for the internal for- ces. For geometrically linear structures itis staightforward to select polynomials that satisfy the element equilibrium in a Strict sense, such as constant axial force and linearly varying bending moments in absence of element loads (Zeris and Ma- hin 1988, 1991). These interpolation functions represent the "Wining Res Eng, Dept of Cv and Env Engg, Univ of Cale foria Bercy, CA 94720 aus. Prof Dept of Civ, and Envir Engrg, Uni of Caloris Berkley. Ca Tote Awicste Editor: Kevin 2, Truman. Dcusion open unl De cember 1, 1957, To extend the closing date one mouth, 2 wien reaes trast be filed wih the ASCE Manages of Jour The manus for this paper was submited for review and povsbe publication on Septet ter £3, 1936. Tis paper i pr ofthe Journal of Structural Engineer ing, Vo. 133, No uly 1987. OASCE, ISSN OTH 94431007 (85 Oboe 0 + 3.50 per pags. Paper No. 14157 (958 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 1097 ‘exact solution to the governing equations, irrespective of the ‘geometry and constitutive law of the beam element. A dis- cretization error, as generally encountered in stffness-based formulations, does not occur. “The main obstacle in the widespread use of this type of clement is the difficulty of integrating the nonlinear element state determination in an analysis program that is based on the direct siffness method. This obstacle is overcome in recent proposals of flexibilty-based beam finite elements (Ciampi land Carlesimo 1986; Taucer etal. 1991; Spacone et al. 1996a) by a state determination procedure that iteratively determines the clement resisting forces and stifiness matrix while strictly satisfying element equilibrium and compatibility in each iter- ation. This procedure is considerably more involved than for stiffnest-based elements, ‘This paper presents a procedure that bypasses the need for ‘an iteration during the element state determination by aecept- ing both residual displacements, which violate compatibility atthe element ends, and unbalanced section forces, which vi- ‘late strict equilibrium along the element during each iteration ofthe global equilibrium equations. On convergence such vi- lations are reduced to the specified numerical tolerance. This ‘new element state determination resembles more closely the Computational steps in a stiffness-based element state deter- rmination and is computationally more efficient than earlier proposals ‘The objective ofthis paper isto present the salient features of stiffness and fexibility-based frame finite elements and then ‘compare the results for a simple example that clearly high- ights the advantages of flexibility-based clements for nonlin- ‘ear structures, Since a pure flexibility formulation is not feas- ible in a mul-degree-of-freedom structural mode, this paper discusses an element state determination process for a fle bility-based element within a nonlinear analysis program based ‘on the direct stiffness method. This paper then concludes with 8 comparison of the computational effort of the new approach With common stiffness-based clement formulations. MODEL ASSUMPTIONS ‘The frame finite-element models in this paper are based on the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory for geometrically linear be- havior. The response in torsion is assumed linearly elastic and ‘uncoupled from the axial and flexural response. Consequently, the displacements and forees associated with torsion are omit ted in the following discussion for simplicity ‘Under these assumptions, the governing variables are the displacement fields M,(2)peq() Cov (e).e(2) wv M,(x)Kyla) i! are FIG. 1. Dlaplacements, Internal Forces, and Deformations, we = Le WO) 80OTT o of the element reference axis, which correspond to deforma- tion fields (Fig. 1) sear fa 8H “These represent the axial strain e(x) along the reference axis and the curvatures «,(x) and x,(1) about two orthogonal axes ‘y and 2, respectively. The deformations are linear functions of the displacement fields by simple differentiation according 10 (Q). The corresponding stress resultant or internal force fetds ig.) Dox) = [Na) Mo) Miao” ® are the axial force N(x) and the bending moments M(x) and ‘M2). Weis assumed that a section constitutive relation », and its tinearization ® are known, where aN aN aw a aM, aM, aM, x-2 = o is the section stiffness matrix; and n denotes time. For the sake of simplicity, the field coordinate x was omitted inthe preced- ing equations. The section constitutive relations in (4)~(6) can bbe defined as section force-deformation relations or derived from a fiber discretization of the eross section. In the later case, the section forces D are determined from the fiber stress distribution by integration, and the section stiffness is assem- bled from the fiber stffnesses, STIFFNESS (DISPLACEMENT) METHOD In the stiffness method the displacement fields of the ele- iment are discretized and interpolated in terms of ry gene alized displacement degrees of freedom q such that, 0) = Nova o where No 0 0 Noe] 0 Naw 0 ® 0 0 Nw) isa 3xny-matrix containing the vectors of interpolation func: tions N., Na and N,, for the three displacement fields , , and v, respectively. The expression for the deformation fields a) is then ac) = Beg o where the strain-displacement transformation matrix B con- tains first and second derivatives of the displacement shape functions according to the kinematic relationships in (2). Re= placing Ad from the incremental version of (9) in the consti- {utive relation (5), yields the relation ADG) = kepada) = KUBO io) for the force field increment AD(z). The principle of viet displacements leads to the equilibrium condition ies ; and its linearization Ka «a in the form of a force-displacement relation, where Q = ele- ment resisting forces and 22. fpr represents the element stiffness matrix, while Aq and R are the vectors of displacement increments and residual forces, respectively; and L denotes the element length FLEXIBILITY (FORCE) METHOD In the Mexibility method the force fields are described by the relation Dix) = OQ ay where (2) contains the force interpolation functions, which relate the generalized nodal forces Q to the internal forces DG), Replacing AD from the incremental version of (14) in the inverse form of the constitutive elation (5), namely Ad(s) ke'ADQ), yields the incremental deformation field Ades) = RADE) = fb~)AQ as) where f(x) = K(x) = section flexibility matrix, The principle of virual forces leads to the compatibility condition ae [ ved ae i) and its linearization Faq an in the form of a displacement-force relation, where q = ele- ‘ment end displacements; and ae fy reat [ weommen ae a is the element flexibility matrix, while AQ and F are vectors ‘of force increments and residuat displacements, respectively, [Note that a meaningful expression for the fexibility matrix F can only be derived for the beam element without rigid-body ‘modes. COMPARISON OF STIFFNESS AND FLEXIBILITY- BASED MODELS. ‘To illustrate the fundamental difference between stiffness and flexibility-based finite-element models, a single-degree-of- JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 1997/969 freedom, single-clement cantilever with a linearly varying cross section and unit length shown in Fig. (a) is considered. ‘The system is subjected to an axial load only, such that the force fields D(x) and deformation fclds d(x) of the beam re- duce to the scalar quantities N(x) and e(x), respectively, The stress-strain relationship is assumed to be given by fe 0S-e, = 095 onesie oss, Sa o> With o = of€ = 0.95]. For the sake of brevity all units are consistent and omitted in the following discussion, For the finite-element solution of this problem, a three-point Gauss integration 1 [wa Done) @ with weights « = $/18, 8/18, and 5/18 at the three integration points is used to compute the element quantities, where € = XIL is a dimensionless element coordinate. The cross-sectional areas atthe three integration points are selected as A = 3, 2.5, and 2, respectively. In the first analysis a flexibility-based formulation is used jn the iterative solution of the system response under an im- posed displacement of g* = 0.634 at the free end of the can- tilever, In the second analysis a stiffness-based formulation is used in the iterative solution of the system response under an applied force of P = 1 at the free end of the cantilever. The force value corresponds to the imposed displacement of g* = (0.634, as determined from the first analysis of the system, ‘This procedute is selected for illustrative purposes only, such that an iterative solution strategy is required in both ‘cases. A flexbilty-based analysis of the system under imposed Toad and a stiffoess-based analysis under imposed displace- ment would not require an iterative solution, This fact has important ramifications in the implementation of a frame ele- ment in a general purpose analysis program, where the element state determination represents an analysis under imposed ele- ‘ment end displacements, This fact will be addressed later in this paper Table 1 shows the flexiility-based analysis for the inter polation of the axial force with a constant function Ne be en ) FIG. 2. Finito-Element Solution: (a) Sample Structure; (b) Flexibiity-Based () Sitfness-Based {960 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 1997, TABLE 1. Flexibility Besed Solution TTolel«]ale]ale olato} |e lelole + | $390 oso] ons | 10 | rs | 53¢7 | 5003 1 | S30 aes 3 | eae os 3 | Bio | aras| sors | ose | sano | ees | 1200 2 | 10000, we 3 foes one 3 | tat | 370] one | ores | sore | Osee | oors 3 | soo te 4 | os ous 4 | S38] sue] oom | oor | nano | 8353 | ase ths ots TABLE 2, silnese-Based Soliton Tel elela|e ele] o ol @lololelololele [aon o966 1 [3580 [500.00 o400|osao | o400| bss | oso 1 | Zom Sess 2 | 2a es 3 | 15 | 1502000125] oss fosss| oars | o978 3 | Lie 3 |e 3 | Her |r| 0022] o019|oss2| oss2| 0389 | osm 3 | oss 2 tae £18 | 1119 foom| 001] oss |osss £9 | 1.00 tows 2 accoring 10 (14). Te table iss the iteration counter i the tangent section flexi f= forthe te nteraion poins she tangent element Resy ref rrmaer[roa~e Zen an sccortng 0 (18), the residual displacement = 9 — the force incrempnt A= Ag te ol foe @ AQ’, the strain €; for the three sections j, and the element node diiacement tee) de = f Ho a~L Soe 2 ‘The expressions in (22) and (23) are derived from the principle of viral forces by three-point Gaussian quadrature ofthe re- sulting integrals. The strain e} in (23) is obtained from the inverse form of the constitutive relation in (19). Table 2 shows the corresponding stiffness-based analysis. ‘The axial displacement field an Fq 2 is assumed to vary linearly, such that the strain 1 1 is constant along the element. Notice that the preceding wo ‘equations correspond to expressions (7) and (9) of the general formulation, Table 2 contains the tangent section stiffness kj =

    You might also like