CIE 619 Earthquake Engineering

Andrew Whittaker and Andrei Reinhorn

Lecture 14b Models of Hysteretic Behavior Mettupalayam V. Sivaselvan and Andrei M. Reinhorn (2000), Hysteretic Models for Deteriorating Inelastic Structures, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(6), 633-640 THE SMOOTH HYSTERETIC MODEL (SHM) The smooth model discussed here is a variation of the model originally proposed by Bouc (1967) and modified by several others (Wen, 1976, Baber and Noori, 1985, Casciati, 1989, Reinhorn et al, 1995). The derivation of this model from the theory of viscoplasticity and its resemblance with the endochronic constitutive theory are discussed in a subsequent section. Plain Hysteretic Behavior without Degradation Plain hysteretic behavior with post yielding hardening can be modeled using two springs (springs 1 and 2 of Fig.1). One of the springs is linear elastic at all deformations and the second changes stiffness upon yield. The two springs undergo the same deformation under a bending moment (or generalized force M). The springs share the moment proportionally to their instantaneous stiffnesses. The portion of the moment shared by the hysteretic spring is denoted by M*. The combined stiffness is given by, (1) K = K post - yield + K hysteretic

Lecture 13

Page 1

CIE 619 Earthquake Engineering

Spring 1: Post-yield Spring A linear elastic spring represents

Andrew Whittaker and Andrei Reinhorn

the post-yielding stiffness: (2)

K post - yield = aK 0

where K 0 = Total initial stiffness (elastic) and a = Post-yielding to initial stiffness ratio.
Spring 2: Hysteretic Spring:

This purely elasto-plastic spring has a smooth transition from the elastic to

the inelastic range displaying degradation phenomena. The non-degrading stiffness is: M* = (1 - a )K 0 1 M* y
N

K hysteretic

& +h h1 sgn M f 2

(3)

where N = power controlling the smoothness of the transition from elastic to inelastic range, h1 and h2 = parameters controlling the shape of the unloading curve, ( h 2 = 1 - h 1 for compatibility with plasticity), M* = Portion of the applied moment shared by the hysteretic spring, M * = (1 - a )M y , the yield moment y of the hysteretic spring and sgn = the signum function. The function in the large parentheses is related to the smooth transition and the signum function governs unloading. When N , the model reduces to a bilinear system. The model can accommodate nonsymmetrical yielding if the yield Moment is defined as: & & 1 + sgn f + 1 - sgn f - M y M y + (4) M * = (1 - a ) y 2 2

()

()

+ where M y and M y are the positive and negative yield moments respectively. The Moment can

therfore be expressed as: * & = aK f + (1 - a )K 1 - M & & M = Kf 0 0 M* y

N

& + h f & h1 sgn M f 2

(5)

The model is similar to the Bouc-Wen model (Wen, 1976), but the transition is described explicitly in terms of the ratio between moment and yield moment. Hysteretic behavior with Degradation Often the structures that undergo inelastic deformations and cyclic behavior weaken and loose some of their stiffness and strength. Moreover, often gaps develop due to cracking and the material becomes discontinuous. The hysteretic model developed herein can accommodate changes in the stiffness, strength and pinching due to gap opening and closing.

Lecture 13

Page 2

CIE 619 Earthquake Engineering

Andrew Whittaker and Andrei Reinhorn

M My0 DMy

aK0 aK0 aK0

K0 Df fy
(a) Stiffness Degradation (b) Strength Degradation

Stiffness Degradation: Stiffness degradation occurs due to geometric effects. The elastic stiffness degrades with increasing ductility. It has been found empirically that the stiffness degradation can be accurately modeled by the pivot rule (Park et al, 1987). According to this rule, the load-reversal branches are assumed to target a pivot point on the initial elastic branch at a distance of aMy on the opposite side, where a is the stiffness degradation parameter. This is shown in Fig.2a. From the geometry in Fig.2a, the stiffness degradation factor is given by: Kcur = RK K 0 =
M cur + a M y K 0fcur + a M y

K0

(6)

where Mcur = current moment, fcur = current curvature, K0 = initial elastic stiffness, a = stiffness + degradation parameter, My = M y if (Mcur,fcur) is on the right side of the initial elastic branch and = M y if (Mcur,fcur) is on the left side. However, since stiffness degradation occurs only in the hysteretic spring, only the hysteretic stiffness is modified and is given by: K hysteretic M* = (R K - a )K 0 1 M* y
N

& +h h1 sgn M f 2

(7)

Ranges of variation of a indicate that for large values (a > 200), no deterioration occurs, while small values (a < 10) produce substantial degradation (Sivaselvan and Reinhorn, 1999)

Lecture 13

Page 3

CIE 619 Earthquake Engineering

Andrew Whittaker and Andrei Reinhorn

Strength Degradation Strength degradation is modeled by reducing the capacity in the backbone curve as shown schematically in Fig.2b. Mathematically, this is equivalent to specifying an evolution equation for the yield moment. The strength degradation rule can be formulated to include an envelope degradation, which occurs when the maximum deformation attained in the past is exceeded and a continuous energy-based degradation. The rule reads:
+ M y /-

+/ f max +/- = M y 0 1 - + / fu

1 b1 H 1 - b 2 1 - b 2 H ult

(8)

+ +/ where M y / - = Positive or Negative Yield Moment, M y 0 - = Initial Positive or Negative Yield

+ /+ Moment, f max = Maximum Positive or Negative Curvatures, f u / - = Positive or Negative Ultimate Curvatures, H = Hysteretic energy dissipated, obtained by integrating the hysteretic energy quotient, Hult = Hysteretic energy dissipated when loaded monotonically to the ultimate curvature without any degradation, b1 = ductility-based strength degradation parameter and b2 = energy-based the strength degradation parameter. The second term on the right-hand side of Eq.(8) represents strength degradation due to increased deformation and the third term, strength degradation due to hysteretic energy dissipated. The quotient of the hysteretic energy in incremental form is given by,

DM M + (M + DM ) DH = Df - R K 2 K 0

(9)

The differential equations governing strength degradation in the smooth hysteretic model (SHM) can be obtained by differentiating Eq.(8). +/- = M y0 b2 1 H 1 - 1 - b H ult 2 +/ b1 f u

+ dM y / -

)b

1
1

dt

+/1 f max + 1 - + / fu

+/f max b1 1 b1 & b2 H (1 - b 2 )H ult

1- b1

& +/ f max

(10)

Eq.(10) requires the hysteretic energy quotient in rate form: & K post - yield + RK K hysteretic & M & & = Mf 1 H = M f RK K 0 RK K 0

(11)

The evolution equations for the maximum positive and negative curvatures can be written as + &+ & & && & and (12) f max = fU f - f max U f ; f max = fU f max - f 1 - U f

)()

)(

( ))

where U(x) is the Heaviside step function. The differential Eq.(10-12) govern strength degradation. Pinching or Slip Pinched hysteretic loops usually are a result of crack closure, bolt slip etc, An additional spring (spring 3. of. Fig.1) called the slip-lock spring (Baber and Noori, 1985, Reinhorn et al, Lecture 13 Page 4

CIE 619 Earthquake Engineering

Andrew Whittaker and Andrei Reinhorn

1995) is added in series to the hysteretic spring to model this effect. The stiffness of the slip-lock spring can be written as: * * 2 2 s 1 M - M exp - = * 2 M* p Ms s
-1

K Slip - Lock

(13)

+ * where s = slip length, = R s f max - f max , M s = s M * , a measure of the moment range over which slip y

occurs, M * = l M * , the mean moment level on either side about which slip occurs, R s , s and l are y
+ parameters of the model and f max and f max are the maximum curvatures reached on the positive and negative sides respectively during the response. The variation of the flexibility of the slip-lock element

can be chosen as Gaussian or another distribution provided that, The stiffness of the combined system is then given by K Hysteretic K slip - lock K = K post - yield + K slip - lock + K Hysteretic

(K

slip -lock

-1

dM = s , the slip length.

(14)

Gap Closing Behavior Often, hysteretic elements exhibit stiffening under higher deformations. This happens for example in metallic dampers (Soong and Dargush, 1997) when axial behavior predominates bending behavior and in bridge isolators (Reichman and Reinhorn, 1995) due to closing of the expansion joints. Such behavior can be modeled by introducing an additional gap-closing spring in parallel as shown in Fig.1. The internal moment and the stiffness of this spring are given by:

M ** = kK 0 N gap f - f gap

)N

gap -1

U f - f gap

(15)

K gap -clo sin g = kK 0 N gap f - f gap

)N

gap -1

U f - f gap

(16)

where M** is the moment in the gap-closing spring, Kgap-closing is the stiffness of the gap-closing spring,, fgap is the gap-closing curvature, U is the heaviside step function and k and Ngap are parameters.

Lecture 13

Page 5

CIE 619 Earthquake Engineering

150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0

Andrew Whittaker and Andrei Reinhorn

150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0

6.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

(a)
150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -6.0 -4.0

(b)
150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0

(c)

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

(d)
150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0 -200.0 -250.0 -6.0 -4.0

(e)
150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 -50.0 -100.0 -150.0

(f)

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

(g)

(h)

(i)

Fig. 1. Examples of Hysteretic behavior modeled by the SHM (Moment vs. Curvature Ductility) (a) Large N (Bilinear) (b) N = 5 (c) Asymmetric Yield (d) h = 0.1 (e) Stiffness Degradation (a = 2) (f) Strength Degradation (b1 = 0.5, b2 = 0.3,mult = 10) (g) Slip (s= 0.1, Rs = 0.25,l = 0.4) (h) Gap Closing (fgap = 2, Ngap = 1.5,k = 0.25) (i) Combination of (e), (f) and (g)

Lecture 13

Page 6

CIE 619 Earthquake Engineering

Andrew Whittaker and Andrei Reinhorn

Lecture 13

Page 7

CIE 619 Earthquake Engineering

Andrew Whittaker and Andrei Reinhorn

Lecture 13

Page 8