Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Frame
From OpenSeesWiki
Example posted by: Laura Eads, Stanford University
Contents
1 Model Description
o 1.1 Concentrated Plasticity Model Overview
o 1.2 Distributed Plasticity Model Overview
o 1.3 Features Common to Both Models
o 1.4 Basic Geometry
o 1.5 Leaning Columns and Frame Links
o 1.6 Rotational Springs (Concentrated Plasticity Model)
o 1.7 Plastic Hinge Regions (Distributed Plasticity Model)
o 1.8 Plasticity Features Common to Both Models
o 1.9 Stiffness Modifications to Elastic Frame Elements (Concentrated
Plasticity Model)
o 1.10 Stiffness Modifications to the Plastic Hinges (Both Models)
o 1.11 Constraints
o 1.12 Masses
o 1.13 Loading
o 1.14 Recorders
o 1.15 Analysis
2 Results
o 2.1 Comparison of OpenSees Models
o 2.2 Comparison of OpenSees & SAP2000 Results
3 References
Model Description
Basic Geometry
The basic geometry of the frame is defined by input variables for the bay width, height of the
first story, and height of a typical (i.e. not the first) story. These values are set as WBay =
360, HStory1 = 180, and HStoryTyp = 144. The leaning column line is located one bay
width away from the frame. In addition to the nine beam-column joint nodes, there is one
additional node for each spring, which connects the spring to the elastic element. This makes
a total of 24 nodes in the structure for the concentrated plasticity model compared to 12 nodes
in the distributed plasticity model.
The rotational springs capture the nonlinear behavior of the frame. As previously mentioned,
the springs in the example employ a bilinear hysteretic response based on the Modified Ibarra
Krawinkler Deterioration Model. Detailed information about this model and the modes of
deterioration it simulates can be found in Ibarra et al. (2005) and Lignos and Krawinkler
(2009, 2010).
In this example, the zeroLength spring elements connect the elastic frame elements to the
beam-column joint nodes. The springs are created using rotSpring2DModIKModel.tcl.
In order to make the nonlinear behavior of the assembly match that of the actual frame
member, the strain hardening coefficient (the ratio of post-yield stiffness to elastic stiffness)
of the plastic hinge must be modified. If the strain hardening coefficient of the actual frame
member is denoted s,mem and the strain hardening coefficient of the spring (or plastic hinge
region) is denoted s,spring then s,spring = s,mem / (1 + n*(1 - s,mem))
Note that this is a corrected version of Equation B.5 from Ibarra and Krawinkler (2005).
Constraints
The frame columns are fixed at the base, and the leaning column is pinned at the base. To
simulate a rigid diaphragm, the horizontal displacements of all nodes in a given floor are
constrained to the leftmost beam-column joint node using the equalDOF command.
Masses
The mass is concentrated at the beam-column joints of the frame, and each floor mass is
distributed equally among the frame nodes. The mass is assigned using the node command,
but it could also be assigned with the mass command.
Loading
Gravity loads are assigned to the beam-column joint nodes using the nodal load command.
Gravity loads tributary to the frame members are assigned to the frame nodes while the
remaining gravity loads are applied to the leaning columns. The gravity loads are applied as a
plain load pattern with a constant time series since the gravity loads always act on the
structure.
In this example, lateral loads are distributed to the frame using the methodology of ASCE 710 (http://www.asce.org/Product.aspx?id=2147487569). Lateral loads are applied to all the
frame nodes in a given floor. A plain load pattern with a linear time series is used for lateral
load application so that loads increase with time.
Recorders
The recorders used in this example include:
The drift recorder to track the story and roof drift histories
The element recorder to track the element forces in the first story columns as well as
the moment and rotation histories of the springs in the concentrated plasticity model
To record the moment and rotation histories in the springs, the region command was used to
assign all column springs to one group and all beam springs to a separate group, and the
region was used as an input to the element recorder.
It is important to note that the recorders only record information for analyze commands that
are called after the recorder commands are called. In this example, the recorders are placed
after the gravity analysis so that the steps of the gravity analysis do not appear in the output
files.
Analysis
The structure is first analyzed under gravity loads before the pushover analysis is conducted.
The gravity loads are applied using a load-controlled static analysis with 10 steps. So that the
gravity loads remain on the structure for all subsequent analyses, the loadConst command is
used after the gravity analysis is completed. This command is also used to reset the time to
zero so that the pushover starts from time zero.
The pushover analysis is performed using a displacement-controlled static analysis. In this
example, the structure was pushed to 10% roof drift, or 32.4. The roof node at Pier 1, node
13 in Figures 1 and 2, was chosen as the control node where the displacement was monitored.
Incremental displacement steps of 0.01 were used. This step size was used because it is
small enough to capture the progression of hinge formation and generate a smooth backbone
curve, but not too small that it makes the analysis time unreasonable.
Results
Comparison of OpenSees Models
References
1. Ibarra, L. F., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). Global collapse of frame structures under
seismic excitations, Technical Report 152, The John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA. [electronic version: https://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports]
2. Ibarra, L. F., Medina, R. A., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). Hysteretic models that
incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 34, 12, pp. 1489-1511.
3. Lignos, D. G., and Krawinkler, H. (2012). Sidesway Collapse of Deteriorating
Structural Systems under Seismic Excitations, Technical Report 177, The John A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA. [electronic version:
https://blume.stanford.edu/tech_reports]
4. Lignos, D. G., and Krawinkler, H. (2011). Deterioration Modeling of Steel Beams
and Columns in Support to Collapse Prediction of Steel Moment Frames, ASCE,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137 (11), 1291-1302.
Retrieved from "http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/Pushover_Analysis_of_2Story_Moment_Frame"