This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
31
Chapter 3
Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
3.1 Introduction
The finite element method (FEM) of analysis has developed into the most widely
used method and tool for engineers and researchers. It provides the engineer with the
capability to analyze complex structural system in a much more realistic manner
regarding the geometry (Noguchi and Schnobrich 1993) and the loading and support
conditions. For nonlinear analysis of RC frames, many finite element (FE) models have
been developed since Ngo and Scordelis (1967) published the earliest application of FEM
to RC beams. According to Miramontes et al. (1996), these FE models can be generally
divided into three categories: local models (microscopic finite element models), global
models (member models), and semilocal models (fiber models), as introduced in Chapter
1.
Local models use a continuous media approach (Miramontes et al. 1996). Structural
members as well as joints are discretized into a large number of finite elements.
Mathematical models describing the stressstrain relationships of concrete and steel,
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
32
bondslip effect between steel bar and the surrounding concrete, shearsliding effect
between steel bar and the cracked surface, opening and closing of cracks, etc., are
expressed in local variables. Since models of this type require the solution of a large
system of equations, they are not suitable for dynamic analysis or cyclic static analysis at
the structural level. Local models are typically applied to analysis of such local behavior
as member or joint response and are not in the scope of this research.
The following sections of this chapter deal with the literature survey of global
models and semilocal models and the description of the stateoftheart FE models for
dynamic and cyclic static analysis of RC frame structures. The background of previous
global and semilocal models for RC frame element is introduced and several
representative models are described in more details. The derivation of the forcebased
fiber element model employed in this research is also presented.
3.2 Global Models
The global model reported herein is defined as the model in which an RC member
(beam or column) is modeled with a single twonode line element or several twonode
line elements, and the element stiffness matrix is obtained by summing the weighted
contributions of the memberwise sectional characteristics which are not stored and thus
cannot be traced back. The NavierBernoulli hypothesis (the hypothesis that plane
sections remain plane) is usually assumed for the calculation of the sectional
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
33
characteristics of the member. Also, only the envelopes of the material stressstrain
curves are usually taken into account, and hence an adhoc set of phenomenological rules
for unloading and reloading response of section or member usually has to be incorporated.
The general solution procedure of dynamic analysis using global models is illustrated in
Fig.3.1.
Some of the phenomenological hysteretic models found from the literature are
shown in Fig.3.2, and the comparison of certain features among these models is indicated
in Table 3.1. Global models can be further classified into lumped models and distributed
models.
Fig. 3.1 Illustration of the solution procedure for global models (Mo 1994).
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
34
Fig. 3.2 Models for hysteresis loops (Mo 1994).
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
35
Table 3.1 Comparison of hysteretic models (Mo 1994)
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
36
3.2.1 Lumped Nonlinearity Models
As the inelastic behavior is often concentrated at the ends of beams and columns in
frames under seismic excitation, an early approach to modeling the nonlinear behavior of
RC members was by means of nonlinear rotational springs located at the member ends
(Zeris 1986). These models are referred to as lumped nonlinearity models. The earliest
lumped model was formally proposed by Gibson (1967), although it had been reportedly
used earlier. It consisted of an elastic element with two nonlinear rotational springs
connected at both ends of the elastic element and was thus also referred to as one
component model (Otani 1974). The configuration of this model is schematically
illustrated in Fig.3.3. The inelastic deformations of the member are lumped into the end
springs. The inelastic momentrotation relationship of a spring was determined assuming
the point of inflection at the center of the member. For instance, Suko and Adams (1971)
determined the spring stiffness based on the location of the inflection point at the initial
elastic stage. This model is versatile in that various sources of nonlinearity can be
specified by addition of corresponding nonlinear springs. Thus, the phenomenological
constitutive relationship for lumped models can be easily incorporated in such models.
Nonlinear rotational springs
Fixed inflection point
Elastic member EI
Fig. 3.3 Lumped nonlinearity model (Giberson 1967).
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
37
Review of several lumped spring constitutive models has been reported in Zeris
(1986) and Taucer (1991), and is summarized as follows: Such lumped plasticity
constitutive models include cyclic stiffness degradation in flexure and shear (Clough and
Benuska 1966, Takeda etal. 1970, Brancaleoni et al. 1983), pinching under reversal
(Banon et al. 1981, Brancaleoni et al. 1983, D’Ambrisi and Filippou 1999) and fixed end
rotations at the beamcolumn joint interface due to bar pullout (Otani 1974, Filippou and
Issa 1988, D’Ambrisi and Filippou 1999). Nonlinear rate constitutive representations
have also been generalized from the basic endochronic theory (Bazant and Bhat 1977,
Rivlin 1981, Valanis 1981) formulation in Ozdemir (1981) to provide continuous
hysteretic relations for the nonlinear springs. An extensive discussion on the
mathematical functions that are appropriate for such models was given in Iwan (1978).
An interesting and perhaps one of the most sophisticated lumped models was
proposed by Lai et al. (1983). This model consisted of two inelastic zerolength
subelement at the ends of a RC member sandwiching a linear elastic line element, as
shown in Fig.3.4. For each inelastic subelement, there are four inelastic corner springs
and one center spring. Each of the corner springs represents the stiffness of the effective
reinforcing steel bars and the effective compression concrete. The center spring
represents the effective concrete in the center region and is only effective when in
compression. This model can be regarded as a fiber hinge model and was found to be able
to simulate the axial forcebiaxial bending interaction in a more rational way than is
possible by classical plasticity theory as mentioned in section 3.2.3.
The basic advantage of the lumped model is certainly its simplicity that reduces
computational requirement and improves numerical stability. Most lumped models,
however, overlook certain aspects of the hysteretic behavior of RC members and are,
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
38
therefore, limited in applicability. For instance, the parametric and theoretical studies
presented by Anagnostopoulos (1981) demonstrated a strong dependency of the model
parameters on the imposed loading pattern and the level of inelastic deformation, which
revealed the sources of the hindrance to modeling the nonlinear behavior with two
zerolength end springs or elements. Also, lumped models are generally unable to account
for the deformation softening behavior of RC members. There are some other issues with
lumped element models as well as the lumped spring constitutive models. Some of the
issues are actually common to distributed nonlinearity models as well. These common
issues are to be discussed in the later sections with distributed models.
3.2.2 Distributed Nonlinearity Models
The realistic nonlinear behavior can spread over a finite length of the member rather
than concentrates at a point. The other approach to modeling the hysteretic behavior of
RC member is, thus, to capture the global behavior of the member by weighted
integration of the responses of several monitoring cross sections along the member or by
Fig. 3.4 Fiber hinge lumped model (Lai et al. 1983).
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
39
means of certain inelastic subelements of finite length.
One of the earliest distributed models was introduced by Clough and Johnston
(1966). The model consists of two parallel elements, one elasticperfectly plastic to
represent yielding and the other perfectly elastic to represent strainhardenig. The
ensemble element allows for a bilinear momentrotation relation along the member. It
was referred to as twocomponent element (Otani 1974).
Otani (1974) presented an element model that consisted of two parallel flexible line
subelements (linearly elastic and inelastic) and two inelastic rotational springs at the
ends of the flexible line subelements. The inelastic deformations were lumped in the
rotational springs as in the lumped models, while the global behavior of the member is
derived by integration of the curvatures along the two parallel subelements. A fixed point
of contraflexure was assumed in the derivation of the stiffness matrix of this model,
which is supposed to be the main limitation of this and similar models.
Soleimani et al. (1979) proposed a model in which an inelastic zone spreading from
the beamcolumn interface into the member as a function of loading history was first
introduced. Asimilar model was developed by Meyer et al. (1983) and was later extended
by Roufaiel and Meyer (1987) to include the shear effect and the axial force effect based
on a set of empirical rules. Roufaiel and Meyers’ model is described in details in the
following paragraph.
An element is subdivided into three segments as shown in Fig.3.5: 1) an inelastic
segment of length X
i
at node i, with the average stiffness (EI)
i
; 2) an inelastic segment of
length X
j
at node j, with the average stiffness (EI)
j
.; and 3) a centered elastic segment of
length (L  X
i
 X
j
), with the initial elastic stiffness (EI)
e
. The (EI)
e
and (EI)
i
values are
obtained from the simplified bilinear momentcurvature envelope curve of the
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
310
corresponding cross sections together with a modified Takeda hysteretic
momentcurvature relationships (Takeda et al. 1970, Popov et al. 1972, Ma et al. 1976) as
shown in Fig.3.5. The stiffness ratio is defined as Q
i
= (EI)
e
/ (EI)
i
. The length X
i
, X
j
and
stiffness ratio Q
i
of the inelastic region at node i depend on the current branch of
momentcurvature diagram. The element stiffness matrix, then, can be calculated from
equations (3.1):
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
¸
(
¸
=
66 65 63 62
56 55 53 52
44 41
36 35 33 32
26 25 23 22
14 11
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
k k k k
k k k k
k k
k k k k
k k k k
k k
k
ij
, (3.1a)
where
L
EA
k k k k = ÷ = ÷ = =
41 14 44 11
(3.1b)
2
12 22 11
22
22
A A A
A
k
÷
= (3.1c)
2
12 22 11
12
23
A A A
A
k
÷
= (3.1d)
23 32
k k = (3.1e)
2
12 22 11
11
33
A A A
A
k
÷
= (3.1f)
22 52
k k ÷ = (3.1g)
23 53
k k ÷ = (3.1h)
32 22 62
k L k k ÷ · = (3.1i)
33 23 63
k L k k ÷ · = (3.1j)
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
311
2
12 22 11
22
55
C C C
C
k
÷
= (3.1k)
2
12 22 11
12
56
C C C
C
k
÷
÷
= (3.1l)
56 65
k k = (3.1m)
55 25
k k ÷ = (3.1n)
56 26
k k ÷ = (3.1o)
65 55 35
k L k k ÷ · ÷ = (3.1p)
66 56 36
k L k k ÷ · ÷ = (3.1q)
 
3 3 3
11
) 1 ( ) ( ) 1 (
) ( 3
1
L Q Q X L Q X
EI
A
j j j i i
e
+ ÷ ÷ + ÷ = (3.1r)
( ) ( )  
2 2 2
12
1 ) ( 1
) ( 2
1
L Q Q X L Q X
EI
A
j j j i i
e
+ ÷ ÷ + ÷ = (3.1s)
( ) ( )   L Q Q X L Q X
EI
A
j j j i i
e
+ ÷ ÷ + ÷ = 1 ) ( 1
) (
1
22
(3.1t)
( ) ( )  
3 3 3
11
1 ) ( 1
) ( 3
1
L Q Q X L Q X
EI
C
i i i j j
e
+ ÷ ÷ + ÷ = (3.1u)
( ) ( )  
2 2 2
12
1 ) ( 1
) ( 2
1
L Q Q X L Q X
EI
C
i i i j j
e
+ ÷ ÷ + ÷ = (3.1v)
( ) ( )   L Q Q X L Q X
EI
C
i i i j j
e
+ ÷ ÷ + ÷ = 1 ) ( 1
) (
1
22
(3.1x)
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
312
Node j Node i
(EI)
(EI)
M
M
M M
Xi
Xj
i
i
j
j
e
y
y
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
(EI)
Fig. 3.5 Modeling with finitelength inelastic zone (Meyer et al. 1983).
M
1
2
8
3
9
7
13
6
11
5
10
12
4

M
1
2
3
4

2
3
3
4
Fig. 3.6 Hysteretic momentcurvature relationship (Takeda et al. 1970).
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
313
Darvall and Mendis (1985) proposed a similar but simpler model with end inelastic
deformations defined through a trilinear momentcurvature relation (Taucer et al. 1991).
Filippou and Issa (1988) and D’Ambrisi and Filippou (1999) also subdivided the element
in several subelements, but followed a different approach. Each effect, such as spread
plasticity, interface bondslip, shear, was modeled by a subelement. All the subelements
were connected in series and/or in parallel to simulate the overall behavior of the member
in a similar manner as that of Otani’s model (1974).
3.2.3 Limitations of Global Models
The simplicity of formulation and the resulting low computational demand and
numerical stability of global models are attractive features. Implementation of these
models in existing nonlinear dynamic analysis programs is also relatively straightforward.
However, there are some limitations common to lumped models and distributed models.
The axial forcebending interaction is typically neglected or is described by a yield
surface for the stress resultants and an associated flow rule according to classical
plasticity theory (Taucer et al. 1991). For example, among some plasticitytheorybased
models, Sfakianakis and Fardis (1991a, 1991b) proposed a bounding surface plasticity
model to describe the cyclic biaxial bending of RC sections. However, compared with the
fiber models to be introduced in the following section, global models are generally unable
to describe the axial forcebending interaction of RC columns in a rational way.
The hysteretic model involved in global model is phenomenological model of
member behavior, which is based on limited experimental data and cannot be easily
extended to general loading conditions. As has been pointed out by Meyer et al.(1991),
most models only approximate the effect of gravity loads; the interaction between
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
314
bending moment, shear and axial force is described by empirical rules, which can quickly
become extremely complex and are often valid only for the few cases for which they are
calibrated. Also, the parameters of these models cannot be readily established in many
cases, especially for lumped models as mentioned in section 3.2.1.
Finally, the stress and strain response of the cross sections cannot be directly traced
as can be easily done for fiber models. As a consequence, the measures of damage can
only be defined in such overall variables as rotation or moments, instead of more rational
local variable of strain.
3.3 Semilocal Models: Fiber Models
3.3.1 Literature Survey of Fiber Models
The semilocal model reported herein is different from the global model described
previously in section 3.2 in that the stressstrain responses of the cross sections are
calculated locally from the cyclic constitutive relationships of the materials. Thus, no
phenomenological hysteretic model is needed, and the local stressstrain response history
can be directly traced. Fiber element models for RC/PC members belong to the category
of semilocal models and have been regarded as one of the most promising approaches to
modeling RC member. Since a fiber element model is employed in this research, the
following discussion will be focused on the fiber models specifically.
As flexural behavior of frame elements is primarily governed by the longitudinal
normal stressstrain response of the cross sections of the element, the idea of subdividing
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
315
the cross section into layers or fibers is rather straightforward and has been employed by
many researchers since early 1970s. Warner (1969) proposed the concept of ‘fiber
filaments’ for the analysis of the biaxial momentcurvature relationship of a RC column.
Park et al. (1972) presented a, now classical, layered model combing assumed cyclic
stressstrain relationships of steel and concrete, sectional momentcurvature analysis, and
twice integration of curvature to predict the cyclic loaddisplacement relation of simply
supported RC beam specimens. It is worth noting that 1 hour of computer (IBM 360/44)
time was required to compute the momentcurvature relation for each of the beam
sections in those early days. However, it was not a finite element approach, and was
limited to statically determinate members such as simply supported beam specimens or
cantilever column specimens. Also, this type of analysis is relatively time consuming
because it requires iteration in determining the position of the neutral axis for each cross
section.
Aktan et al. (1975) proposed the first finite fiber element model and applied this
model to dynamic analysis of RC columns subjected to biaxial earthquake excitations and
constant axial load. The classical stiffness approach with cubic shape functions were
employed. Mark and Roesset (1976) presented a fiber model with the incremental
stiffness approach and extended the application to static and dynamic analysis of the RC
frame specimens tested by Gulkan and Sozen (1971). Some of the numerical instability
problems caused by material and member softening were first identified; however, they
avoided numerical instability by using a fictitious concrete stressstain curve without
strain softening. Kaba and Mahin (1983) employed the fiber model to study the cyclic
behavior of RC sections and later extended to dynamic analysis of RC columns and
frames (Kaba and Mahin 1984). This model incorporated the concept of force
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
316
interpolation functions, which was first proposed by Mahasuverachai and Powell (1982)
for the inelastic analysis of piping and tubular structures. By assuming linear variation of
the section flexibilities along the member and employing an eventtoevent solution
scheme, Kaba and Mahins’ model appeared to be the first flexibilitybased finite fiber
element model for RC frames.
Zeris (1986) and Zeris and Mahin (1988) improved the original Kaba and Mahins’
model. They discussed two numerical problems: one at section level and the other at
member level. It was demonstrated that the tangent stiffness NewtonRaphson scheme at
the section level was unable to capture the softening behavior of the section. The
numerical problem at the member level was illustrated by a simple cantilever column
example as replicated in Fig.3.7. When a cantilever is displaced beyond the point of
maximum resistance, section 1 at the fixed base of the column starts softening. In order to
maintain equilibrium, sections 2 through 5 start unloading. This behavior generally
cannot be captured with a standard displacementbased model because of the assumption
of a linear distribution of curvature within the member length. They proposed a
fourphase element state determination procedure that mixed both force and displacement
interpolation functions. Their model showed satisfactory performance and was later
extended to biaxial bending problems (Zeris and Mahin 1991). However, as argued by
Taucer et al. (1991), the element state determination procedure is not theoretically clear
and is derived from ad hoc corrections of the KabaMahin model rather than from a
general theory.
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
317
It had been recognized by late 80’s (e.g. Meyer et al. 1991) that the flexibilitybased
or forcedbased formulation could be a remedy to the numerical problems induced by
softening. However, the determination of the element resisting forces, which is often
referred to as element state determination, is not so straightforward for forcebased
formulation as for classical stiffness approach. The element state determination
procedures proposed by Zeris and Mahin can also lead to numerical problems because
compatibility is not guaranteed.
This problem had actually been solved in a paper authored by Ciampi and Carlesimo
(1986), in which a flexibilitybased beam element formulation with sophisticated local
hysteresis models was presented. They proposed a set of procedures that requires
iterations at the element level and implemented the procedures in a general
displacementbased FEM program (ANSR) for the first time. This approach was later
adopted and further clarified by Taucer et al. (1991), Spacone et al. (1996a, 1996b,
1996c), and Petrangeli and Ciampi (1997) and was applied to the implementation of fiber
beamcolumn element for RC members. Through an apparently more cumbersome
approach (Petrangeli and Ciampi 1997), this method has proved to be a much more stable
and robust algorithm than the previous methods. Neuenhofer and Filippou (1997)
proposed a modified version of this method, by which the iterations at the element level
Fig. 3.7 Illustration of numerical problems at member level (Zeris and Mahin 1988).
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
318
can be circumvented. Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) later extended the modified
method to include geometrically nonlinear behavior. Most recently, Coleman and
Spacone (2000) discussed the sensitivity of this method to the number of integration
points or the socalled localization issues; they proposed a regularization technique for
softening sections to improve the problems of loss of objectivity in both the section
momentcurvature response and in the element forcedisplacement response. These
studies have generally demonstrated the superiority of the approach on account of its
robustness in the presence of strength softening and the lower number of model degrees
of freedom for comparable accuracy in global and local response (Neuenhofer and
Filippou 1998). Therefore, this approach is employed in this research. The procedures of
this approach are to be described in details in Chapter 4.
3.3.2 Displacementbased Formulation Vs. Forcebased Formulation
For most of the finite element programs, the displacementbased approach is
employed. Typically, variations of the wellknown NewtonRaphson iterative procedure
are used for nonlinear FE analysis (Cook et al. 1989, Crisfield 1991). The
NewtonRaphson (NR) iterative procedure is illustrated in Fig.3.8. With the NR method,
the standard procedures of displacementbased FE analysis are listed in Table 3.2.
Fig. 3.8 Illustration of NewtonRaphson procedure (Cook et al. 1989).
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
319
Table 3.2 Procedures of displacementbased FE analysis
(1) Iteratively ((NewtonRaphson) solve the system of equations for the incremental
nodal displacement Δu
i
(2) For each element, all the section deformation increments are approximated from
Δu
i
by using the displacement interpolation function (shape function), a(x)
Δd
i
(x) = a(x)Δu
i
(3.2)
and the current section deformation vector is
d
i
(x) = d
i1
(x) +Δd
i
(x) (3.3)
(3) From section deformation d
i
(x) and the section forcedeformation relation (section
constitutive relations), the section stiffness k
t
i
(x) and the section force vector D(x)
can be obtained.
(4) Element stiffness and element resisting forces are calculated from integrating k
t
i
(x)
and D(x) along the member length:
( ) ( )dx x x x
L
i
t
T i
t
a k a K
}
=
0
) ( (3.4)
( ) ( )dx x x x
L
T i
R
a D a P
}
=
0
) ( (3.5)
(5) Assemble the elements’ stiffness to get the global stiffness K
t
i
(6) Proceed to the next (NewtonRaphson) iteration.
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
320
In the displacementbased approach, the section deformations are approximated
from the nodal displacements by using the displacement interpolation function (or shape
function) as indicated by Eq.(3.2).The cubic Hermitian polynomials are often adopted as
the displacement interpolation function, as cubic interpolation functions produce exact
solution for elastic frame elements. Cubic displacement interpolation function, however,
would result in linear curvature. The curvature of a RC member is highly nonlinear
especially after the maximum resistance has been reached, as shown in Fig.3.7.
Consequently, the adoption of cubic Hermitian displacement interpolation function
generally does not maintain equilibrium along the member and a finer element mesh
would be needed to avoid numerical instability.
In contrast to the inevitable inaccuracy of the displacement interpolation function,
the distribution of the section forces along the member is rather simple. For example,
when there are only nodal forces, the bending moment is linear and the axial force is
constant along the member. Thus, for a member as shown in Fig.3.9, the section force
vector can be expressed in terms of nodal force vector by
( ) ( )P b D x x = , (3.6)
where section force vector
( )
( )
( )
( )
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
=
x M
x M
x N
x
y
z
D
, (3.7)
nodal force vector
¦
¦
¦
)
¦
¦
¦
`
¹
¦
¦
¦
¹
¦
¦
¦
´
¦
=
yj
yi
zj
zi
M
M
M
M
N
P
, (3.8)
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
321
force interpolation function
( )
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
¸
(
¸

.

\


.

\

÷

.

\


.

\

÷ =
L
x
L
x
L
x
L
x
x
1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 1
b
, (3.9)
and N(x), M
z
(x), and M
y
(x) are the axial force and bending moments at section x .
The force interpolation function b(x) is not only simple, it is exact. Thus, equilibrium
along the member is always satisfied in a strict sense. However, the calculation of the
element resisting forces in the forcebased approach is not so straightforward as that in
the displacementbased approach (Eq.(3.5)). The procedure proposed by Ciampi and
Carlesimo, as mentioned in section 3.3.1, has to be used to calculate the element resisting
forces. This procedure will be described in details in Chapter 4.
x
y
z
Fig. 3.9 Element local coordinates.
node i
node j
Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames
bondslip effect between steel bar and the surrounding concrete, shearsliding effect between steel bar and the cracked surface, opening and closing of cracks, etc., are expressed in local variables. Since models of this type require the solution of a large system of equations, they are not suitable for dynamic analysis or cyclic static analysis at the structural level. Local models are typically applied to analysis of such local behavior as member or joint response and are not in the scope of this research. The following sections of this chapter deal with the literature survey of global models and semilocal models and the description of the stateoftheart FE models for dynamic and cyclic static analysis of RC frame structures. The background of previous global and semilocal models for RC frame element is introduced and several representative models are described in more details. The derivation of the forcebased fiber element model employed in this research is also presented.
3.2 Global Models
The global model reported herein is defined as the model in which an RC member (beam or column) is modeled with a single twonode line element or several twonode line elements, and the element stiffness matrix is obtained by summing the weighted contributions of the memberwise sectional characteristics which are not stored and thus cannot be traced back. The NavierBernoulli hypothesis (the hypothesis that plane sections remain plane) is usually assumed for the calculation of the sectional
32
1 Illustration of the solution procedure for global models (Mo 1994).3. Some of the phenomenological hysteretic models found from the literature are shown in Fig. 3. Also.1.3. Global models can be further classified into lumped models and distributed models. and hence an adhoc set of phenomenological rules for unloading and reloading response of section or member usually has to be incorporated.2. The general solution procedure of dynamic analysis using global models is illustrated in Fig.1. Fig.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames characteristics of the member. 33 . only the envelopes of the material stressstrain curves are usually taken into account. and the comparison of certain features among these models is indicated in Table 3.
2 Models for hysteresis loops (Mo 1994).Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames Fig. 34 . 3.
1 Comparison of hysteretic models (Mo 1994) 35 .Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames Table 3.
36 . It consisted of an elastic element with two nonlinear rotational springs connected at both ends of the elastic element and was thus also referred to as one component model (Otani 1974). Nonlinear rotational springs Fixed inflection point Elastic member EI Fig.3. This model is versatile in that various sources of nonlinearity can be specified by addition of corresponding nonlinear springs.2.1 Lumped Nonlinearity Models As the inelastic behavior is often concentrated at the ends of beams and columns in frames under seismic excitation. These models are referred to as lumped nonlinearity models. The inelastic momentrotation relationship of a spring was determined assuming the point of inflection at the center of the member.3.3 Lumped nonlinearity model (Giberson 1967). The inelastic deformations of the member are lumped into the end springs. an early approach to modeling the nonlinear behavior of RC members was by means of nonlinear rotational springs located at the member ends (Zeris 1986). The configuration of this model is schematically illustrated in Fig.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames 3. 3. Suko and Adams (1971) determined the spring stiffness based on the location of the inflection point at the initial elastic stage. For instance. The earliest lumped model was formally proposed by Gibson (1967). Thus. the phenomenological constitutive relationship for lumped models can be easily incorporated in such models. although it had been reportedly used earlier.
Most lumped models. Brancaleoni et al. (1983). and is summarized as follows: Such lumped plasticity constitutive models include cyclic stiffness degradation in flexure and shear (Clough and Benuska 1966. This model can be regarded as a fiber hinge model and was found to be able to simulate the axial forcebiaxial bending interaction in a more rational way than is possible by classical plasticity theory as mentioned in section 3. Valanis 1981) formulation in Ozdemir (1981) to provide continuous hysteretic relations for the nonlinear springs. ol er a ost i e e n t n s s i i t i t e p s ao have also been generalized from the basic endochronic theory (Bazant and Bhat 1977. as shown in Fig. s i x rotations at the beamcolumn joint interface due to bar pullout (Otani 1974. however. 1983). 37 . Takeda etal. n e . overlook certain aspects of the hysteretic behavior of RC members and are. Filippou and I a18. Rivlin 1981.3. Each of the corner springs represents the stiffness of the effective reinforcing steel bars and the effective compression concrete. there are four inelastic corner springs and one center spring. For each inelastic subelement.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames Review of several lumped spring constitutive models has been reported in Zeris (1986) and Taucer (1991).4. r cl n ea 18. 1970.3. ’ m rin Fl pu 99 ad i d n B nn tl 91 Ba a oitl 93D A bi ad ipo 19) n f e ed . ’ m ri n Fl pu19) N n na r ecntu v r r eti s s 98 D A bi ad ipo 99. pinching under reversal (ao ea 18. An extensive discussion on the mathematical functions that are appropriate for such models was given in Iwan (1978).2. The center spring represents the effective concrete in the center region and is only effective when in compression. The basic advantage of the lumped model is certainly its simplicity that reduces computational requirement and improves numerical stability. This model consisted of two inelastic zerolength subelement at the ends of a RC member sandwiching a linear elastic line element. An interesting and perhaps one of the most sophisticated lumped models was proposed by Lai et al.
to capture the global behavior of the member by weighted integration of the responses of several monitoring cross sections along the member or by 38 . limited in applicability. There are some other issues with lumped element models as well as the lumped spring constitutive models.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames therefore.2. Some of the issues are actually common to distributed nonlinearity models as well. Also.2 Distributed Nonlinearity Models The realistic nonlinear behavior can spread over a finite length of the member rather than concentrates at a point. 1983). 3.4 Fiber hinge lumped model (Lai et al. These common issues are to be discussed in the later sections with distributed models. 3. which revealed the sources of the hindrance to modeling the nonlinear behavior with two zerolength end springs or elements. lumped models are generally unable to account for the deformation softening behavior of RC members. The other approach to modeling the hysteretic behavior of RC member is. the parametric and theoretical studies presented by Anagnostopoulos (1981) demonstrated a strong dependency of the model parameters on the imposed loading pattern and the level of inelastic deformation. For instance. Fig. thus.
Soleimani et al.. (1979) proposed a model in which an inelastic zone spreading from the beamcolumn interface into the member as a function of loading history was first introduced. with the average stiffness (EI) j.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames means of certain inelastic subelements of finite length. 2) an inelastic segment of length Xj at node j.Xi . A similar model was developed by Meyer et al. The model consists of two parallel elements. One of the earliest distributed models was introduced by Clough and Johnston (1966). with the average stiffness (EI) i. The (EI) e and (EI) i values are obtained from the simplified bilinear momentcurvature envelope curve of the 39 . which is supposed to be the main limitation of this and similar models. A fixed point of contraflexure was assumed in the derivation of the stiffness matrix of this model. while the global behavior of the member is derived by integration of the curvatures along the two parallel subelements. and 3) a centered elastic segment of length (L .Xj). (1983) and was later extended by Roufaiel and Meyer (1987) to include the shear effect and the axial force effect based o ast f m iclu s R ua l n Mee ’ oe i dsr e i dtl i t n e o e p i rl . Otani (1974) presented an element model that consisted of two parallel flexible line subelements (linearly elastic and inelastic) and two inelastic rotational springs at the ends of the flexible line subelements. The ensemble element allows for a bilinear momentrotation relation along the member.3. It was referred to as twocomponent element (Otani 1974). The inelastic deformations were lumped in the rotational springs as in the lumped models. An element is subdivided into three segments as shown in Fig. one elasticperfectly plastic to represent yielding and the other perfectly elastic to represent strainhardenig. of e ad yr m dls ec bd n e i n h ra e i s i as e following paragraph.5: 1) an inelastic segment of length Xi at node i. with the initial elastic stiffness (EI) e.
1j) A12 k 23 2 A11 A22 A12 k 32 23 k A11 k 33 2 A11 A22 A12 k 52 22 k k 53 23 k k 62 k 22 32 L k k 63 k 23 33 L k 310 .1b) (3. 0 0 k55 k56 k65 k66 (3. The length Xi.3.1e) (3. Popov et al.1f) (3. 1970.1c) (3. can be calculated from equations (3. The element stiffness matrix.1a) EA k11 44 k14 41 k k L A22 k 22 2 A11 A22 A12 (3. 1972. Xj and stiffness ratio Qi of the inelastic region at node i depend on the current branch of momentcurvature diagram.1i) (3.1d) (3. Ma et al. The stiffness ratio is defined as Qi = (EI) e / (EI) i. 1976) as shown in Fig. then.1): k11 0 0 kij k41 0 0 where 0 0 k14 0 k22 k23 0 k32 k33 0 0 0 k44 k52 k53 0 k62 k63 0 0 k25 k26 k35 k36 .Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames corresponding cross sections together with a modified Takeda hysteretic momentcurvature relationships (Takeda et al.1h) (3.1g) (3.5.
1l) (3.1s) (3.1v) (3.1p) (3.1u) (3.1x) 1 C12 X 2 j ( L X i ) 2 i Qi L2 1 1 Q j Q 2( EI ) e 1 C 22 X j j ( L X i ) i Qi L Q 1 1 Q ( EI ) e 311 .1q) (3.1n) (3.1r) (3.1k) (3.1m) (3.1t) 1 C11 X 3 j ( L X i ) 3 i Qi L3 1 1 Q j Q 3( EI ) e (3.1o) (3.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames C 22 k 55 C11 C 22 12 C2 12 C k 56 C11 C 22 12 C2 k 65 56 k k 25 55 k k 26 56 k k 35 55 65 k L k k 36 56 66 k L k 1 A11 X i3 (Qi ) L X j ) 3 (1 j ) j L3 1 ( Q Q 3( EI ) e 1 A12 X i2 i ( L X j ) 2 j Q j L2 Q 1 1 Q 2( EI ) e 1 A22 X i i ( L X j ) j Q j L Q 1 1 Q ( EI ) e (3.
5 Modeling with finitelength inelastic zone (Meyer et al.6 Hysteretic momentcurvature relationship (Takeda et al. 1983).Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames 3 2 (EI) i 1 Xi Node i (EI) (EI) e 5 j 6 4 Node j L Xj M i My My M j Fig. 3. M 2 1 3 7 13 12 6 10 4 9 8 11 5 M 2 1 3 3 4 3 4 2 Fig. 1970). 312 . 3.
For example. was modeled by a subelement. All the subelements were connected in series and/or in parallel to simulate the overall behavior of the member ia i ir anrshtf t i m dl17) n s l m nea t o Oa ’ oe(94. As has been pointed out by Meyer et al. However. However.2. shear. Each effect. Sfakianakis and Fardis (1991a. 1991). ma a ns 3.3 Limitations of Global Models The simplicity of formulation and the resulting low computational demand and numerical stability of global models are attractive features. Implementation of these models in existing nonlinear dynamic analysis programs is also relatively straightforward. 1991b) proposed a bounding surface plasticity model to describe the cyclic biaxial bending of RC sections. but followed a different approach.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames Darvall and Mendis (1985) proposed a similar but simpler model with end inelastic deformations defined through a trilinear momentcurvature relation (Taucer et al. global models are generally unable to describe the axial forcebending interaction of RC columns in a rational way. which is based on limited experimental data and cannot be easily extended to general loading conditions.(1991). compared with the fiber models to be introduced in the following section. Filippo ad s (98 ad ’ m rin Fl pu 19) l sbi dd h e m n u n I a 18) n D A bi ad ipo (99 a o ud i t l et s s i s ve e e in several subelements. 1991). interface bondslip. The axial forcebending interaction is typically neglected or is described by a yield surface for the stress resultants and an associated flow rule according to classical plasticity theory (Taucer et al. the interaction between 313 . there are some limitations common to lumped models and distributed models. most models only approximate the effect of gravity loads. among some plasticitytheorybased models. The hysteretic model involved in global model is phenomenological model of member behavior. such as spread plasticity.
1. Thus.3 Semilocal Models: Fiber Models 3. As a consequence. Since a fiber element model is employed in this research. shear and axial force is described by empirical rules. especially for lumped models as mentioned in section 3. instead of more rational local variable of strain.2 in that the stressstrain responses of the cross sections are calculated locally from the cyclic constitutive relationships of the materials.1 Literature Survey of Fiber Models The semilocal model reported herein is different from the global model described previously in section 3. which can quickly become extremely complex and are often valid only for the few cases for which they are calibrated. Finally. the following discussion will be focused on the fiber models specifically.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames bending moment. the parameters of these models cannot be readily established in many cases. 3. no phenomenological hysteretic model is needed. Fiber element models for RC/PC members belong to the category of semilocal models and have been regarded as one of the most promising approaches to modeling RC member. Also. As flexural behavior of frame elements is primarily governed by the longitudinal normal stressstrain response of the cross sections of the element.2. and the local stressstrain response history can be directly traced. the measures of damage can only be defined in such overall variables as rotation or moments. the idea of subdividing 314 . the stress and strain response of the cross sections cannot be directly traced as can be easily done for fiber models.3.
they avoided numerical instability by using a fictitious concrete stressstain curve without strain softening. now classical. Mark and Roesset (1976) presented a fiber model with the incremental stiffness approach and extended the application to static and dynamic analysis of the RC frame specimens tested by Gulkan and Sozen (1971). Also. Park et al. r r 16) rpsd h ocp f f e s c s n l n e i fa et frh aa s o t b x l o et im n ’o t nl i fh i i m m n l s e ys e aa curvature relationship of a RC column. and twice integration of curvature to predict the cyclic loaddisplacement relation of simply supported RC beam specimens. it was not a finite element approach. sectional momentcurvature analysis. This model incorporated the concept of force 315 . Some of the numerical instability problems caused by material and member softening were first identified. It is worth noting that 1 hour of computer (IBM 360/44) time was required to compute the momentcurvature relation for each of the beam sections in those early days. (1972) presented a. however. However.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames the cross section into layers or fibers is rather straightforward and has been employed by m n r er e s c er 17s Wa e (99 pooe t cneto ‘br ay e a hr i e a y 90. and was limited to statically determinate members such as simply supported beam specimens or cantilever column specimens. The classical stiffness approach with cubic shape functions were employed. this type of analysis is relatively time consuming because it requires iteration in determining the position of the neutral axis for each cross section. (1975) proposed the first finite fiber element model and applied this model to dynamic analysis of RC columns subjected to biaxial earthquake excitations and constant axial load. Kaba and Mahin (1983) employed the fiber model to study the cyclic behavior of RC sections and later extended to dynamic analysis of RC columns and frames (Kaba and Mahin 1984). layered model combing assumed cyclic stressstrain relationships of steel and concrete. Aktan et al.
However. In order to maintain equilibrium. They discussed two numerical problems: one at section level and the other at member level. which was first proposed by Mahasuverachai and Powell (1982) for the inelastic analysis of piping and tubular structures. the element state determination procedure is not theoretically clear and is derived from ad hoc corrections of the KabaMahin model rather than from a general theory. Their model showed satisfactory performance and was later extended to biaxial bending problems (Zeris and Mahin 1991). By assuming linear variation of the section flexibilities along the member and employing an eventtoevent solution shm . 316 . When a cantilever is displaced beyond the point of maximum resistance. Zeris (1986) and ZeriadMai (98 i poe t oi nl aa n Mai ’ sn h 18)m rvd h r i K b ad h s n e ga n model.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames interpolation functions. aaadMai ’ oe apa dt b t fs f x it ce e K b n h s m dl per o e h itl i ly n e e r e b i based finite fiber element model for RC frames.3. They proposed a fourphase element state determination procedure that mixed both force and displacement interpolation functions. It was demonstrated that the tangent stiffness NewtonRaphson scheme at the section level was unable to capture the softening behavior of the section.7. section 1 at the fixed base of the column starts softening. The numerical problem at the member level was illustrated by a simple cantilever column example as replicated in Fig. as argued by Taucer et al. (1991). sections 2 through 5 start unloading. This behavior generally cannot be captured with a standard displacementbased model because of the assumption of a linear distribution of curvature within the member length.
in which a flexibilitybased beam element formulation with sophisticated local hysteresis models was presented. yr tl 91 t t l i ly c z t s . It hd en eon e b le 0 ( gMee ea 19)hth f x it a be r gi d y a 8’ e . They proposed a set of procedures that requires iterations at the element level and implemented the procedures in a general displacementbased FEM program (ANSR) for the first time. by which the iterations at the element level 317 . However. This problem had actually been solved in a paper authored by Ciampi and Carlesimo (1986). Neuenhofer and Filippou (1997) proposed a modified version of this method. This approach was later adopted and further clarified by Taucer et al. (1996a. 1996b. Spacone et al.7 Illustration of numerical problems at member level (Zeris and Mahin 1988).Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames Fig. and Petrangeli and Ciampi (1997) and was applied to the implementation of fiber beamcolumn element for RC members. this method has proved to be a much more stable and robust algorithm than the previous methods. which is often referred to as element state determination. (1991). Through an apparently more cumbersome approach (Petrangeli and Ciampi 1997). 1996c). a e e b i based or forcedbased formulation could be a remedy to the numerical problems induced by softening. The element state determination procedures proposed by Zeris and Mahin can also lead to numerical problems because compatibility is not guaranteed. the determination of the element resisting forces. is not so straightforward for forcebased formulation as for classical stiffness approach. . 3.
1989).3. Neuenhofer and Filippou (1998) later extended the modified method to include geometrically nonlinear behavior. Typically. Forcebased Formulation For most of the finite element programs. Therefore. 1989. With the NR method. variations of the wellknown NewtonRaphson iterative procedure are used for nonlinear FE analysis (Cook et al.2 Displacementbased Formulation Vs. The procedures of this approach are to be described in details in Chapter 4. the standard procedures of displacementbased FE analysis are listed in Table 3. this approach is employed in this research.8 Illustration of NewtonRaphson procedure (Cook et al. 3. Fig. Coleman and Spacone (2000) discussed the sensitivity of this method to the number of integration points or the socalled localization issues. Most recently. 3. Crisfield 1991).8. The NewtonRaphson (NR) iterative procedure is illustrated in Fig.2. These studies have generally demonstrated the superiority of the approach on account of its robustness in the presence of strength softening and the lower number of model degrees of freedom for comparable accuracy in global and local response (Neuenhofer and Filippou 1998). the displacementbased approach is employed. 318 . they proposed a regularization technique for softening sections to improve the problems of loss of objectivity in both the section momentcurvature response and in the element forcedisplacement response.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames can be circumvented.3.
the section stiffness kt (x) and the section force vector D(x) can be obtained.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames Table 3. a(x) i Δd (x) = a(x)Δu i i (3. (4) Element stiffness and element resisting forces are calculated from integrating kt (x) and D(x) along the member length: i i K t t ( x)a aT x k x dx i i 0 L (3.5) i () s m lt e m n ’tfeso et g bltfes t 5A s b h l et sf st gth l asf sK e e e e s in e o in (6) Proceed to the next (NewtonRaphson) iteration.2 Procedures of displacementbased FE analysis (1) Iteratively ((NewtonRaphson) solve the system of equations for the incremental nodal displacement Δu i (2) For each element. all the section deformation increments are approximated from Δu by using the displacement interpolation function (shape function).3) (3) From section deformation d (x) and the section forcedeformation relation (section constitutive relations). 319 .4) PR ( x)a aT x D x dx i 0 L (3.2) and the current section deformation vector is d (x) = d (x) +Δd (x) i i i1 i (3.
7) where section force vector nodal force vector . the distribution of the section forces along the member is rather simple. however. In contrast to the inevitable inaccuracy of the displacement interpolation function.2). x M x M y x N M zi P M zj M yi M yj (3. would result in linear curvature. (3.7.The cubic Hermitian polynomials are often adopted as the displacement interpolation function.9.3. Consequently.Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames In the displacementbased approach.8) 320 . as shown in Fig. Thus. the section force vector can be expressed in terms of nodal force vector by D b x xP .(3. for a member as shown in Fig. N x D z . the adoption of cubic Hermitian displacement interpolation function generally does not maintain equilibrium along the member and a finer element mesh would be needed to avoid numerical instability. For example.6) (3. the bending moment is linear and the axial force is constant along the member. when there are only nodal forces. as cubic interpolation functions produce exact solution for elastic frame elements.3. the section deformations are approximated from the nodal displacements by using the displacement interpolation function (or shape function) as indicated by Eq. Cubic displacement interpolation function. The curvature of a RC member is highly nonlinear especially after the maximum resistance has been reached.
Thus. as mentioned in section 3.3.9 Element local coordinates. equilibrium along the member is always satisfied in a strict sense. y x node i z Fig. node j The force interpolation function b(x) is not only simple. the calculation of the element resisting forces in the forcebased approach is not so straightforward as that in the displacementbased approach (Eq. 3. However. 321 . The procedure proposed by Ciampi and Carlesimo. Mz(x).(3. (3.1. This procedure will be described in details in Chapter 4. it is exact. and My(x) are the axial force and bending moments at section x .Chapter 3 Finite Element Analysis of RC Frames force interpolation function 1 0 0 0 0 x x b x 0 1 0 0 .5)). has to be used to calculate the element resisting forces.9) L L x x 0 0 0 1 L L and N(x).