You are on page 1of 87

THE UNLOADING STIFFNESS OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements


for the Master Degree in

Earthquake Engineering & Engineering Seismology


By
Viviana Iris Novelli

Supervisors: Dr. T.J. Sullivan, Dr. R. Pinho, Prof. Calvi G. M.

December, 2008

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia


Università degli Studi di Pavia
The dissertation entitled “The unloading stiffness of reinforced concrete members”, by
Viviana Iris Novelli, has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology.

Timothy Sullivan …… … ………

Name of Reviewer 2………… … ……

Name of Reviewer 3………… … ……

i
Abstract

ABSTRACT

Concrete structures present a reduction in stiffness as a function of the ductility and one of the best
hysteretic rules introduced to represent the non-linear behaviour is the Takeda hysteresis model.
After a literature review on the hysteresis cycle defined by the Takeda model, the research focuses on
the unloading stiffness behavior as a function of the ductility and other characteristics of the structure.
First of all, analyses are carried out using the experimental results available from the Kawashima
Laboratory of the Tokyo Institute of Technology.
Afterwards, a numerical model with a single-degree- of-freedom (SDOF) oscillator is developed in
SeismoStruct and parameters are calibrated to obtain the hysteretic behavior observed through
experimental analyses. After testing its efficiency, such a model is used to study the unloading
stiffness behavior as a function of the displacement ductility, varying the following parameters of the
SDOF: section ratio, aspect ratio and axial load ratio.
The next step introduces the lumped-plasticity modeling, which follows the unloading rules defined by
Takeda for hysteresis cycles. In such a way it is possible to analyze the SDOF stiffness in function of
the curvature ductility varying the same structure parameters mentioned previously.
Finally in Ruaumoko 2D, non linear time history analyses are run with a series of accelerograms on a
cantilever column having a hysteretic moment-curvature plastic hinge and an equivalent SDOF spring
system having the same initial stiffness and strength as the column but with hysteretic behaviour
defined in terms of force and displacement.
From the results of these analyses it is concluded that the unloading stiffness depends on the
displacement ductility and the axial load ratio.

Keywords: concrete structure; unloading stiffness; displacement ductility; curvature ductility; axial
load ratio; Takeda hysteresis model

ii
Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Professor T.J. Sullivan for his valuable guidance throughout the duration of this
dissertation. I want also to thank Professor R. Pinho and Professor G.M. Calvi for their important
reviews of the present research and suggestions. I am thankful to MEEES (Masters in Earthquake
Engineering and Engineering Seismology) consortium for providing the financial support to take part
and complete the MEEES program.

Moreover, I would like to express few words for all nice people that were with me in this short time of
my life .Everything started receiving the admission letter for this master, and Ro, you were with me,
how many jumped of happiness. September came very fast and I got on that ferry for Patra with my
Vale.. I felt safe with you but I was alone too early and you came.. Rajesh. Your strength, enthusiasm
and passion impressed me, although I felt very little in front of you. In March I was in Pavia, courses,
home-works but when I was with you, Myrto, my life smiled to me. The time to work for my
dissertation arrived too fast and I thought that the most complicated moment of my life was coming,
but Lena mou arrived making unforgettable each moment lived together. Today I am here. The first
acknowledgement is for my “team”. It would be impossible to arrive at the end of this travel without
you … where I didn’t learn to format a word document but I understood that nothing is without a
solution if I have people that love me.

And so thanks to:

Lenuccia.. for your single word.

Igor.. ino.. for your suggestions.. and if the dinners with us were good excuses to complain about you
it was a pleasure for me.

Juan.. become a perfect young house husband.

Myrto.. for your sweetness that made simpler my experience.

Rajesh.. for your energy, current in this my work.

iii
Acknowledgements

my friends of my life..

Vale.. always with me in each small step.

Andrea.. for your cute reproaches.

Daniele.. for the happiness that u feel for my success.

Manu’.. for her way to look at the world

Rò: for the important position that you gave to me in your life.

Pat: for your passion.

Daniel.. because you are always on my side.

My parents.. for the patience to understand my choices.

Kika.. this success is dedicated to you, because without you my life doesn’t make sense.

Sono grata al Professor T.J. Sullivan per il suo prezioso giudizio durante il periodo della mia tesi. Inoltre vorrei
ringraziare i Professori R. Pinho e Professor , G.M . Calvi per le loro importanti revisioni e suggerimenti
riguardanti il mio lavoro di ricerca. Sono riconoscente alla MEEES (Masters in Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Seismology) per aver provveduto al supporto finanziario e per avermi dato l’opportunità di
completare il mio corso di studio.

Ora mi piacerebbe dedicare alcune parole a tutte le belle persone che mi hanno accompagnato in questo piccolo
pezzo di strada, per me tanto importante. Tutto incominciò ricevendo la lettera di ammissione per questo
master.. momento indimenticabile.. Ro’ tu eri con me, quanti salti di gioia. Settembre arrivò velocemente e su
quella nave per Patrasso io ci salii con la mia Vale.. con te mi sentivo al sicuro ma presto rimasi sola e le
difficoltà non furono poche, ma arrivisti tu. Rajesh, la tua forza, il tuo entusiasmo e la tua passione mi colpì
particolarmente, anche se a volte mi sentivo molto piccola davanti a te. In marzo ero in Pavia.. corsi,
homeworks, ma quando ero con te Myrto la mia vita mi sorrideva. Arrivò troppo velocemente il tempo di
lavorare alla mia tesi e quando pensavo che avrei trascorso uno dei periodi più complicati della mia vita è
arrivata Lena mou.. rendendo indimenticabili ogni singolo momento trascorso insieme. Ed oggi sono qui.. al
termine di questo percorso e il primo ringraziamento speciale è per la mia squadra. Senza di voi non c’è l’avrei
mai fatta … di certo non ho imparato a formattare un documento word ma ho capito che niente è impossibile se
intorno a me ci sono persone che mi vogliono bene

.E quindi grazie a...

Lenuccia.. per ogni tua singola parola

Igor.. ino.. per i tuoi consigli.. e anche se ogni cena da noi era un modo per lamentarmi sappi che ogni sera era
un piacere aspettarti
iv
Acknowledgements

Juan.. che ora sa anche come essere un perfetto uomo di casa

Myrto.. per la tua dolcezza che ha reso questa mia esperienza + semplice

Rajesh.. per la tua energia presente anche in questo mio lavoro

gli amici di sempre

Vale.. con me in ogni piccolo passo della mia vita

Andrea.. per i tuoi simpatici rimproveri

Daniele.. per la gioia che esprimi per i miei successi

Manu’.. per il suo modo di vedere il mondo

Ro’.. per il ruolo importante che mi dai nella tua vita..

Pat.. per la tua passione

Daniel .. perché sei sempre dalla mia parte

i miei genitori.. che hanno la pazienza di capire le mie scelte

Kika.. ovviamente questo successo è dedicato a te, perché senza di te la mia vita non avrebbe senso.

v
Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................. ii 
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................xiii 
LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................ xiv 
1  INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1  General ..................................................................................................................................... 1 
1.2  Literature review ...................................................................................................................... 2 
1.3  Relationships between Force-Displacement (F-Δ) and Moment-Curvature (M- )................. 3 
2  EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................... 6 
2.1  Description ............................................................................................................................... 6 
2.2  Description of test .................................................................................................................... 6 
2.3  Analysis procedure................................................................................................................... 7 
2.4  Experimental results............................................................................................................... 13 
3  ANALYTICAL PREDICTIONS ................................................................................................... 16 
3.1  Numerical model.................................................................................................................... 16 
3.2  Numerical results ................................................................................................................... 18 
3.3  Influence of the Aspect ratio, the Section ratio and the axial load ratio on the alpha-factor. 23 
3.4  Computation of the yielding displacement ............................................................................ 30 
3.5  Alpha- factor as a function of curvature ductility .................................................................. 35 
4  SMALL DISPLACEMENT NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY ANALYSES ............................... 40 
4.1  Description ............................................................................................................................. 40 
4.2  Accelerograms ....................................................................................................................... 40 

vi
Table of contents

4.3  Ground- Motion Time Histories ............................................................................................ 40 


4.4  Response Spectra ................................................................................................................... 42 
4.5  Ground Motion Spectra Comparison and Comment.............................................................. 43 
4.6  Modelling ............................................................................................................................... 44 
4.7  Case-study: structural periods ................................................................................................ 45 
5  CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 64 
6  APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................... 66 
7  REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 69 

vii
List of figures

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1.Takeda hysteresis model – Ref: Hysteresis Models of Reinforced Concrete for Earthquake
Response Analysis by Otani [May 1981] ................................................................................................. 2 

Figure 1.2. Effect of element slenderness on unloading displacements for α=0.50 ................................ 5 

Figure 2.1. The experimental specimen used for the present work is reported to show the method used
for the computation of the alpha-factor. .................................................................................................. 6 

Figure 2.2. Geometrical characteristics and reinforcement detailing (in mm) of pier TP-01 – Ref:
website of the Kawashima Laboratory (http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp) .................................................... 7 

Figure 2.3. The time-history of lateral displacement and the cyclic loading correspondence of pier TP-
01. ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 

Figure 2.4. Hysteresis loop of the TP-01st : the loading cycles in black are used for the computation
of alpha-factor. ......................................................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 2.5. Correction of initial force of the loading test ........................................................................ 8 

Figure 2.6. Estimation of the yielding force Fy and displacement Dy of the case study. ...................... 9 

Figure 2.7. Definition of maximum and unloading force and displacement amplitude....................... 10 

Figure 2.8. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot considering Funl equal to 0.50 Fm ................ 11 

Figure 2.9. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot considering Funl equal to 0.25 Fm ................ 11 

Figure 2.10. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot considering Funl equal to 0.50 Fm ............. 12 

Figure 2.11. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot considering Funl equal to 0.25 Fm ............... 12 

Figure 2.12. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot. .................................................................. 15 

viii
List of figures

Figure 3.1. Idealization of curvature distribution – [Ref: Priestley, M.J.N. Calvi G.M. Kowalsky M.J.
(2007)]. .................................................................................................................................................. 17 

Figure 3.2. Effect of P-delta on lateral resistence – [Ref: Priestley, M.J.N. Calvi G.M. Kowalsky M.J.
(2007)] ................................................................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 3.3. Cyclic loading response: comparison between the experimental and numerical results (TP-
01). ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 3.5. Value of yielding displacement and Force in the numerical model (TP-01) ...................... 19 

Figure 3.6. Alpha factor and displacement ductility comparison between the experimental and
numerical results (TP-01) ...................................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 3.7. Geometrical characteristics and reinforcement detailing (in mm) for TP-31 and TP-32 -
Ref: website of the Kawashima Laboratory (http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp) .......................................... 20 

Figure 3.8. The time-history of lateral displacement for TP-31 a) and TP-32 b) - Ref: website of the
Kawashima Laboratory (http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp) ......................................................................... 21 

Figure 3.9. Cyclic loading response: comparison between the experimental and numerical results (TP-
31). ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 3.10. Yielding displacement and Force in the numerical model (TP-31). ................................. 21 

Figure 3.11. Alpha factor and displacement ductility comparison between the experimental and
numerical results (TP-31) ...................................................................................................................... 22 

Figure 3.12. Cyclic loading response: comparison between the experimental and numerical results ... 22 

Figure 3.13. Yielding displacement and Force in the numerical model (TP-32). ................................. 22 

Figure 3.14. Alpha factor and displacement ductility comparison between the experimental and
numerical results (TP-32) ...................................................................................................................... 23 

Figure 3.15. The aspect ratio H/d and the section ratio used in the numerical computation. ............... 24 

Figure 3.16. Cyclic loading response used to obtain to numerical results for H/d=3; H/d=7and
H/d=10. .................................................................................................................................................. 24 

Figure 3.17. Alpha factor as a function of the displacement ductility: comparison for H/d=3; H/d=7and
H/d=10. .................................................................................................................................................. 25 

Figure 3.18. The time histories of the lateral displacement for the different section ratio ................... 26 

Figure 3.18. Cyclic loading response for numerical analyses for L/d=1; L/d=3and; L/d=7 and L/d=10.
............................................................................................................................................................... 27 

ix
List of figures

Figure 3.19. Alpha factor as a function of the displacement ductility: comparison from numerical
analyses for l/d=1; l/d=5; l/d=7; L/d=10. ............................................................................................... 27 

Figure 3.20. The axial load used in the numerical computation. .......................................................... 28 

Figure 3.21. Cyclic loading response: comparison between the experimental results for different values
of the axial load ratio. ............................................................................................................................ 28 

Figure 3.22. Alpha factor as a function of the displacement ductility: comparison obtained from
numerical analyses for σ=0; σ=0.05; σ=0.10; σ=0.15; σ=020 ............................................................... 29 

Figure 3.23. Comparison a) Aspect ratio , b) Section ratio and c) Axial load ratio............................. 29 

Figure 3.24. Yielding displacement for analytical models with H/d=3; H/d=7and H/d=10 computed
according to method 1 and method 2 ..................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 3.25. Yielding displacement obtained for analytical models with a) l/d=1; b) l/d=5 according to
both methods, c1) l/d=7; d1) L/d=10 according to method 1 and c2) l/d=7; d2) L/d=10 according to the
method 2. ............................................................................................................................................... 32 

Figure 3.26. Alpha factor as a function of the displacement ductility: comparison relative to analytical
models for l/d=1; l/d=5; l/d=7; L/d=10, where the yielding displacement is computed according to
method 2. ............................................................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 3.27. Yielding displacement relative to a1) σ=0.0; according to method 1; a2) σ=0.0; according
to method 2; b) σ=0.05, c) σ=0.10, d) σ=0.15, e) σ=0.20 according to both methods. ........................ 34 

Figure 3.28. Alpha factor as function of the displacement ductility: comparison relative to analytical
models for σ=0; σ=0.05; σ=0.10; σ=0.15; σ=020, where the yielding displacement is computed
according to method 2............................................................................................................................ 35 

Figure 3.29. Alpha factor as a function of the curvature ductility: comparison for analytical results for
H/d=3; H/d=7and H/d=10. ..................................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 3.30. Alpha factor as a function of the curvature ductility: comparison for analytical results for
l/d=1; l/d=5; l/d=7; L/d=10. ................................................................................................................... 38 

Figure 3.31. Alpha factor as function of the curvature ductility: comparison relative to numerical
results for σ=0; σ=0.05; σ=0.10; σ=0.15; σ=020. ................................................................................. 38 

Figure 4.1. Time histories of earthquake ground motions .................................................................... 41 

Figure 4.2. Linear elastic response spectra for the LA09 record. ......................................................... 42 

Figure 4.3. Linear elastic response spectra for the LA19 record. ......................................................... 42 

Figure 4.4. Linear elastic response spectra for the EC record. ............................................................. 43 

x
List of figures

Figure 4.5.Comparison of the linear elastic response spectra for the 3 ground motions use. Damping is
5% of critical .......................................................................................................................................... 43 

Figure 4.6. Modeling SDOF column and spring ................................................................................... 44 

Figure 4.7. Modified Takeda Model – Ref: Ruaumoko 2D, Appendix [Carr, 2004] .......................... 44 

Figure 4.8. Effect of using different alpha ratios - SDOF: H/Lp=13 – LA09....................................... 47 

Figure 4.9. Effect of using different alpha ratios - SDOF: H/Lp=15 – LA09....................................... 47 

Figure 4.10. Effect of using different alpha ratios - SDOF: H/Lp=13 – ELCE .................................... 49 

Figure 4.11. Effect of using different alpha ratios - SDOF: H/Lp=15 – ELCE ................................... 49 

Figure 4.12. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=5 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m ................. 51 

Figure 4.13. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=10 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m ............... 51 

Figure 4.14. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=15 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m ............... 52 

Figure 4.15. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=5 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m ................. 52 

Figure 4.16. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=10 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m ............... 53 

Figure 4.17. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=15 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m ............... 53 

Figure 4.18. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=5 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m ................. 54 

Figure 4.19. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=10 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m .............. 54 

Figure 4.20. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=15 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m ............... 55 

Figure 4.21. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loop in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models - System 1 –
α=0 ......................................................................................................................................................... 57 

Figure 4.22. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loops in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models - System 1 –
α=0.5. ..................................................................................................................................................... 57 

Figure 4.23. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loops in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models - System 2 –
α=0 ......................................................................................................................................................... 58 

Figure 4.24. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loops in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models - System 2 –
α=0.5. ..................................................................................................................................................... 58 
xi
List of figures

Figure 4.25. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loop s in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models - System 3–
a=0 ......................................................................................................................................................... 59 

Figure 4.26. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loops in terms of Force and displacement of column and SDOF spring models - System 3–
α=0.5. ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 

Figure 4.27. a) Time-history response in terms of a)Moment-Curvature and b) Force-Displacement


for ........................................................................................................................................................... 60 

Figure 4.28. Hysteresis loop in terms of Moment and curvature relative to SDOF column................. 62 

xii
List of tables

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1. Identifications numbers of the cyclic test on the bridge piers – Ref: website of the
Kawashima Laboratory (http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp) ......................................................................... 14 

Table 4.1. Ground motion characteristic parameters. ........................................................................... 41 

Table 4.2. Height and Plastic hinge used in SDOF column .................................................................. 45 

Table 4.3. Moment of Inertia corresponding to different undamped natural periods of the SDOF
column. .................................................................................................................................................. 45 

Table 4.4. Height and Plastic hinge used in SDOF column .................................................................. 50 

Table 4.5. Moment of Inertia estimated fixing the fundamental period of the SDOF column. ............ 50 

In the following section the SDOF systems having the properties indicated in the Table 4.6 with
ductility equal to 4 and damping equal to zero are analyzed. ................................................................ 55 

Table 4.7. Properties of the SDOF column. .......................................................................................... 55 

xiii
List of symbols

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Kun Unloading stiffness

ki Initial stiffness

ky Yielding stiffness

E Young's modulus of elasticity

Iunl(i) Unloading moment of inertia for each cycle

Iin Initial moment of inertia

f*M- (i) EIun(i) / EIin

Lp Plastic hinge length

H Height of column

Dunl Unloading displacement

Dm Maximum displacement

Dy Yielding displacement

Dt Total displacement demand

De Elastic displacement component

Dp Plastic displacement component

kr(i) unloading stiffness of the loading cycle i

Lsp strain penetration length

xiv
List of symbols

yielding strength

dbl diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement

fc0 unconfined concrete strength in compression

ft0 concrete strength in tension

kc confinement factor

fcc confined concrete strength in compression

the ratio between kr(i) the unloading stiffness of the loading cycle i
f* and the unloading stiffness of the system after reaching the first
maximum displacement amplitude when the ductility is greater than
one

Ec0 Concrete Young’s modulus of elasticity is estimated, according to


Priestley et al. [1996]

Feq,max Equivalent maximum force amplitude for each cycle without P-


delta effect

P Axial load

d section depth

L section length

σ Axial load ratio

Ag gross section

a*(i) logf*/log(1/μ(i)) Unloading stiffness degradation parameter in


terms of the displacement ductility

a*M- (i) Unloading stiffness degradation parameter in terms of the curvature


ductility

εco unconfined concrete strain

εcc confined concrete strain

μΔ Displacement ductility

μ Curvature ductility

xv
List of symbols

μ(i) Displacement ductility for each cycle i

μ (i) Curvature ductility for each cycle i

α Unloading stiffness degradation parameter

t Plastic curvature

e Elastic curvature

Φunl Unloading curvature

Φy Yielding curvature

Φm Total curvature

Φm(i) Maximum curvature for each cycle i

xvi
Chapter 1: Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Concrete structures experience a reduction in stiffness as function of the ductility. Recent
work by Tuan H. P., Sullivan T. J., Calvi G. M. et al (2008) highlighted a potential
inconsistency in the use of the unloading factor in lumped plasticity non-linear time history
analyses. For this reason the goal of the present research is to undertake a review of the
behaviour of RC structures, considering how the unloading stiffness varies as a function of the
ductility and other characteristics of the structure.

The scope of the work is:

• To undertake a literature review on the hysteresis behaviour of concrete structure


(introduction)

• To review experimental results available from the Kawashima Laboratory of the


Tokyo Institute of Technology (chapter 2)

• To develop models of various single-degree-of-system (SDOF) oscillators in


SeismoStruct to simulate the hysteretic behaviour observed in experimental analyses
(chapter 3)

• To investigate the behaviour of the unloading stiffness as a function of the


displacement ductility of the SDOF systems modeled in SeismoStruct with different
section ratio, aspect ratio and axial load ratio (chapter 3)

• To create a lumped-plasticity model , that follows the unloading rules defined by


Takeda for hysteresis cycles, to determine the behaviour of the unloading stiffness as a
function of the curvature ductility of SDOF systems having different section ratio,
aspect ratio and axial load ratio (chapter 3)

• To model an equivalent SDOF spring having a hysteretic force-displacement


behaviour that replicates the cantilever column defined by a hysteretic moment-

1
Chapter 1: Introduction

curvature relationship and compare the responses of the two models with different
unloading stiffnesses.

• Make conclusions & recommendations.

1.2 Literature review


The Takeda hysteresis model was developed by Takeda, Sozen and Nielsen [1970], Otani
[1981] and Kabeyasawa, Shiohara, Otani, Aoyama [1983] to represent the force-displacement
hysteretic properties of RC structures.

The Takeda model according to Otani (1981) includes (a) stiffness changes at flexural
cracking and yielding, (b) rules for inner hysteresis loops inside the outer loop, and (c)
unloading stiffness degradation with deformation. The hysteresis rules are extensive and
comprehensive (Figure 1.1). In this work the modified Takeda Model [Ref: Kabeyasawa,
Shiohara, Otani, Aoyama; May 1983. Analysis of the full-scale Seven storey Reinforced
Concrete Test structure] is considered, in which the initial elastic branch up until cracking is
neglected. Instead the response is linear up until yield with the unloading stiffness defined as

(1.1)

in which (Dy, Fy): yielding point deformation and resistance, Dm: maximum deformation
amplitude greater than Dy, α: unloading stiffness degradation parameter (normally between
0.0 and 0.6).

Figure 1.1.Takeda hysteresis model – Ref: Hysteresis Models of Reinforced Concrete for Earthquake
Response Analysis by Otani [May 1981]

2
Chapter 1: Introduction

According to the following literature reviews:

Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes by Takeda, Sozen and Nielsen,


December [1970]: the unloading stiffness degradation parameter is equal to 0.4.

Hysteresis Models of Reinforced Concrete for Earthquake Response Analysis by Otani [May
1981]: the unloading stiffness degradation parameter, alpha, is normally between 0.0 and 0.5.

Analysis of the full-scale Seven storey Reinforced Concrete Test structure by Kabeyasawa,
Shiohara, Otani, Aoyama [May 1983]: the unloading stiffness degradation parameter is
normally between 0.0 and 0.6.

1.3 Relationships between Force-Displacement (F-Δ) and Moment-Curvature (M- )


In this section the relationship between Force-Displacement (F-Δ) and Moment-Curvature
(M- ) is explained.

By specifying a plastic hinge length, Lp, increasing curvature demands on a SDOF cantilever
system with height H can be translated to an equivalent displacement response in accordance
with Equation (1.2).

D D D
(1.2)
H
L H
3

where De is the elastic displacement component, Dp is the plastic deformation component


associated with the inelastic rotation of a plastic hinge, t is the total curvature at the plastic
hinge location and e is the elastic curvature. Note that the ratio of the total displacement to
the yield displacement (i.e. the displacement ductility demand) can be expressed for a
cantilever in terms of the curvature ductility demand by Equation (1.3).

Δ 1 3 1 (1.3)

After reaching a total displacement of Δt, the Takeda model instructs the structure to unload
with a reduced stiffness given by Equation (1.1).

If we assume, for simplicity, that there is no strain hardening and note that the Takeda model
is specified for NLTHAs in a Moment-Curvature environment, then the elastic curvature
recovered in unloading the structure from a total displacement demand of Dt is given by
Equation (1.4).

3
Chapter 1: Introduction

F (1.4)
K

The ratio of the elastic displacement recovered in unloading to the yield displacement of a
cantilever is therefore given by Equation (1.5).

3
3 (1.5)

Dividing Equation (1.2) by Equation (1.5), we obtain Equation (1.6) which expresses the ratio
of the total displacement demand to the unloading displacement as a function of the curvature
ductility demand, the ratio Lp/H, and the alpha factor.

1 (1.6)
3 1

This has interesting implications if we consider the displacement ratios predicted for
structures with different ratios of Lp/H, unloading from different levels of ductility demand
As shown in Figure 1.1., for an alpha of 0.5 and for low values of Lp/H (i.e. for tall slender
structures), the ratio of unloading displacement to the peak displacement reduces below a
value of 1. This is equivalent to saying that a slender structure subject to a big push into the
inelastic range would be predicted to have residual displacements in the opposite direction.
This essentially highlights a potentially serious problem with application of the Takeda model
in a moment-curvature format and accounts for observations made by Sullivan et al (2008).

4
Chapter 1: Introduction

3.0

Ratio of peak displacement to


2.5

unloading displacement
2.0 Lp/H = 0.05
Lp/H = 0.10
1.5
Lp/H = 0.15
1.0 Lp/H = 0.20

0.5

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Curvature ductility demand

Figure 1.2. Effect of element slenderness on unloading displacements for α=0.50

Before proposing solutions to this matter, the next chapters will consider how the unloading
stiffness varies , as observed in experimental testing.

5
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

2 EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS
2.1 Description
In order to obtain a better understanding of the unloading stiffness of concrete columns, first
of all we study the behavior the unloading coefficient as a function of the displacement
ductility by examining the experimental results available from the Kawashima Laboratory of
the Tokyo Institute of Technology as described in the following paragraphs.

2.2 Description of test


The validity of the value of the alpha-factor is carried out here by considering experimental
results available from the Kawashima Laboratory of the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

Several results of experimental tests for the study of the cyclic behavior of reinforced concrete
bridge piers are available at the website of the Kawashima Laboratory
(http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp). These experiments involved the simultaneous application of
vertical and horizontal loads to reinforced concrete specimens. Figure 2.2 depicts the
experimental set-up and the corresponding simplified structural model.

Figure 2.1. The experimental specimen used for the present work is reported to show the method used for
the computation of the alpha-factor.

6
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

The data taken is identified with the number TP-01; the general geometrical characteristics, as
well as the reinforcement detailing, are presented in Figure 2.2. The cylinder strength of
concrete is 35.9 MPa and the yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement is 363 MPa. The
vertical load is constant and equal to 163 kN. Figure 2.3 includes the time-history of lateral
displacement and the cyclic loading and corresponding response in terms of Force-
Displacement.

Figure 2.2. Geometrical characteristics and reinforcement detailing (in mm) of pier TP-01 – Ref: website
of the Kawashima Laboratory (http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp)

30 200

150
20
100
10 50
Force (kN)

0 0
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 -50
-10
-100

-20 -150

-200
-30
Displacement (mm)
Figure 2.3. The time-history of lateral displacement and the cyclic loading correspondence of pier TP-01.

2.3 Analysis procedure


Using the hysteresis loop defined by the force-displacement relationship in Figure 2.3 the
alpha factor for each loading cycle i can be defined as in formula (2.1)

K i
log
K (2.1)
i
1
log
µ i
7
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

where the displacement ductility is given by equation (2.2)

Dm i
µ i
Dy (2.2)

In order to avoid considering systems prone to shear failure the values of alpha-factors are
not consideared when the lateral resistence drops below 80% of the yileding force. For this
reason the unloading stiffness degradetion parameters are computed for the loading cycles of
Figure 2.6 in black and neglected for the ones in grey.
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
Force (kN)

20
0
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20-20
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
Displacement (mm)
Figure 2.4. Hysteresis loop of the TP-01st : the loading cycles in black are used for the computation of
alpha-factor.

As shown in Figure 2.5 at the beginning of cyclic loading the initial force is not equal to zero
(grey line), so to have a null value of it, the hysteresis loop has been offsetted (black line).

190
160
130
100
70
Force (kN)

40
10
-20
-6 -3 0 3 6 9 12
-50
-80
-110
-140
Displacement (mm)
Figure 2.5. Correction of initial force of the loading test

8
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

190
160
130
100
70

Force (kN)
40
10
-20
-6 -3 0 3 6 9 12
-50
-80
-110
-140
Displacement (mm)
Figure 2.6. Estimation of the yielding force Fy and displacement Dy of the case study.

The yielding stiffness / for the case study presented in Figure 2.6, is computed
through a trend line used to approximate the first cycle until the yielding point of the system.
It is not always very simple to evaluate the yielding displacement, because the structure
doesn’t yield from the first cycle.

In this specific case Fy=157 kN; Dy=8mm.

9
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

The unloading stiffness for each cycle i can be obtained from equation (2.3) between the
maximum (m) and unloading (unl) force and deformation amplitude.

F i F i
K i (2.3)
D i D i

Figure 2.7. Definition of maximum and unloading force and displacement amplitude.

Clearly there is some uncertainty in the exact unloading stiffness due to the very non-linear
response obtained with Fibre-Element, distributed plasticity modelling. For this reason, two
different unloading stiffness definitions were considered. As is shown in Figure 2.7, the
unloading force considered in the first case is taken equal to 0.50 and in the second case to
0.25 of the maximum force amplitude.

10
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

The following figures indicate the values of alpha factor as a function of different values of
displacement ductility.

0,16
0,14
0,12
0,1
alpha-factor a

0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5
ductility m
Figure 2.8. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot considering Funl equal to 0.50 Fm

0,3

0,25

0,2
alpha-factor a

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5
ductility m
Figure 2.9. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot considering Funl equal to 0.25 Fm

Analyzing the data it observed that after reaching a maximum displacement Dm in the first
cycle of loading, the structure unloads with stiffness greater than the initial one, therefore Kr
doesn’t depend on the alpha-factor. Observing such independence between alpha-factor, Kr
for ductility values less than 3.5 in Figure 2.8 and 2.0 in Figure 2.9, gives negative values of
the alpha-factor. The negative values are neglected in the plots, and are assumed equal to
zero.

The value of the alpha-factor starts to increase for higher values of ductility (α=0.11. in Figure
2.8 and α=0.28 in the Figure 2.9 for m=5.1).

11
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

Rather than consider the ratio of the unloading to initial stiffness, it appears more reasonable
to consider the ratio at the unloading stiffness (at cycle i) to the initial unloading stiffness (at
yield). For this reason, in the following figures the alpha-factor is computed by using equation
(2.4)

log f
(2.4)
1
log
µ i

where f* is defined equal to the ratio between Kr(i) the unloading stiffness of the loading cycle
loading i and the unloading stiffness of the system after reaching the first maximum
displacement amplitude for which the ductility is greater than one.

(3,1) 0,4
0,35
0,3
0,25
alpha-factor a*

0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5
ductility m
Figure 2.10. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot considering Funl equal to 0.50 Fm

0,35

0,3

0,25
alpha-factor a*

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5
ductility m
Figure 2.11. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot considering Funl equal to 0.25 Fm

Although for Figure 2.10 and Figure 2.11 the previous considerations about alpha-factor are
still valid for low ductility values, it has to be noted that the values obtained from the new
definition of alpha-factor have a trend to remain constant as a function of ductility as
12
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

compared to the ones observed calculated from equation (2.1), which is more in accordance to
the Takeda model, that proposes the same unloading stiffness degradation parameter (between
0.0 and 0.6) to compute the unloading stiffness in consecutive loading cycles. Moreover with
this formulation of the alpha-factor, the initial stiffness of the reinforced concrete bridge piers
for m=1 under cyclic loading can be modelled successfully.

For these reasons, for the experimental results reported in the next section, the alpha-factor is
computed from equation (2.4) considering an unloading force equal to 0.25 of the maximum
force amplitude in each cycle.

2.4 Experimental results


Table 2.1 indicates the legend used in the plot (Figure 2.12) computed to evaluate the
dependence of the alpha-factor (calculated by formula (2.4)) on the ductility. The same legend
classifies the general geometrical characteristics of the sections analyzed and the several
identifications of the cyclic test on the bridge piers as they are referred to on the website of
the Kawashima Laboratory.

For each test examined, the axial load ratio is computed as σ (=P/fcc*Ag, where P is the axial
load, fcc the confined compressive strength and Ag the gross section area) to be equal to 0.04.

13
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

Table 2.1. Identifications numbers of the cyclic test on the bridge piers – Ref: website of the Kawashima Laboratory
(http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp)

Section Size
Test # ID Number Section
(mm)
TP-001 Square 400×400
TP-002 Square 400×400
Six reinforced concrete specimens with same size and
TP-003 Square 400×400
1 strength were loaded under different loading
TP-004 Square 400×400
hystereses to evaluate the effect of loading hystereses.
TP-005 Square 400×400
TP-006 Square 400×400
TP-007 Oval 400×900 Three reinforced concrete specimens with oval section
2 TP-008 Oval 400×900 for bridge columns were loaded to evaluate the
TP-009 Oval 400×901 confinement effect of interlocking hoops.
TP-010 Square 400×400
Four reinforced concrete specimens were loaded to
TP-011 Square 400×400
3 evaluate the effect of a longitudinal reinforcement
TP-012 Square 400×400
diameter on a plastic hinge length.
TP-013 Square 400×400
TP-027 Square 400×400
Four reinforced concrete specimens were loaded to
TP-028 Square 400×400
4 evaluate the effect of aspect ratio on a plastic hinge
TP-029 Square 400×400
length.
TP-030 Square 400×400
TP-031 Square 400×400
Four reinforced concrete specimens were loaded to
TP-032 Square 400×400
5 evaluate the seismic performance under varying axial
TP-033 Square 400×400
force.
TP-034 Square 400×400
TP-035 Square 400×400
Four reinforced concrete specimens were loaded to
TP-036 Square 400×400
6 evaluate the seismic performance of reinforced
TP-037 Square 400×400
concrete arch ribs with hollow section.
TP-038 Square 400×400
TP-039 Square 400×400 Four reinforced concrete specimens were loaded to
TP-040 Square 400×400 evaluate the effectiveness of densely arranged spiral
7
TP-041 Square 400×400 confinement zone in reinforced concrete section
TP-042 Square 400×400 columns with hollow section
TP-074 Square 400×400 Six reinforced concrete specimens were loaded to
TP-075 Square 400×400 evaluate the seismic performance of reinforced
8
TP-076 Square 400×400 concrete bridge columns under bi-directional flexural
TP-077 Square 400×400 loading.
TP-078 Square 400×400
TP-079 Square 400×400 Six reinforced concrete specimens were loaded to
TP-086 Square 400×400 evaluate the seismic performance of C-bent columns
9
TP-087 Square 400×400 under bi-lateral seismic excitation based on a hybrid
TP-088 Square 400×400 loading test.
TP-089 Square 400×400

14
Chapter 2: Experimental observations

1,1
test 1
1
test 2
0,9 test 3

0,8 test 4
test 5
0,7
test 6
0,6
alpha-factor a*

test 7

0,5 test 8
test 9
0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ductility m
Figure 2.12. Alpha factor and displacement ductility plot.

The results are very interesting and from the plot (Figure 2.12) the variation of alpha-factor
as a function of ductility can be understood.

It can be noted that for low ductility alpha-factor assumes the highest values (a=1.04 for
m=1.30) obtained from formula (2.4). The exception mentioned happens for m-range from 1
to 2.5, when f* is very close to 1 (obviously lower than unity).

In addition it can be highlighted that the alpha-factor is always below 0.5 when the ductility is
from 2.5 to 10. Moreover it is observed for each cyclic test on the bridge piers that the alpha-
factor tends to remain constant which is in accordance with Takeda Hysteresis Model, that
proposes the same α (normally between 0.0 and 0.6) to compute the unloading stiffness in
the consecutive loading cycles.

Finally, it is observed that the increasing values of the ductility yield a regular increase of
alpha-factor, expect for low m when a assumes very high values when constant a-notion is no
longer valid. At low values of ductility, the alpha value appears to be sensitive to the exact
value of ductility chosen.

15
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

3 ANALYTICAL PREDICTIONS
3.1 Numerical model
Numerical models were developed and analyzed in SeismoStruct [Seismo soft 2008] for the
same geometrical and loading characteristics of the experimental test TP-01 previously
presented. The 1.25m high pier was modeled by four finite elements, the first two from the
bottom are 1/6 and the last two 1/3 of the column height. Two integration sections per element
were used (Gauss quadrature), each one containing around 250 integration points. The column
is also modeled with the length of the plastic hinge Lp over which strain and curvature are
considered to be equal to the maximum value at the base column. The plastic hinge length
incorporates the strain penetration length Lsp as shown in Figure 3.1. Further, the curvature
distribution higher up the column is assumed to be linear, in accordance with the SDOF
model being examined.

The strain penetration length, Lsp may be taken as:

0.022 (3.1)

Where fye and dbl are the expected yield strength and diameter of the longitudinal
reinforcement.

16
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

Figure 3.1. Idealization of curvature distribution – [Ref: Priestley, M.J.N. Calvi G.M. Kowalsky M.J.
(2007)].

For the constitutive relation for concrete in compression, the well known model of Mander et
al. [1988] was adopted, with the improvements later introduced by Martínez-Rueda and
Elnashai [1997]. A linear behavior for the concrete in tension was assumed, followed by an
abrupt reduction after exceeding the tension resistance. This is achieved by setting ft0 = 0.34
fc0 where fc0 is the unconfined concrete strength in compression ([Vinagre, 1997], [Lin and
1/2.

Scordelis, 1975]). Young’s modulus of elasticity for concrete is estimated according to


Priestley et al. [1996], as Ec0 = 4700 fc0 . In order to account for the effect of confinement due
1/2

to the presence of stirrups, the compressive strength and the corresponding strain were
modified using the following confinement factor (kc):

(3.2)

1 5 1 (3.3)

The unconfined concrete strain (εco) corresponding to the maximum compression strength is
taken as 0.002. while the value for the confinement factor kc was 1.161 for the confined
concrete and 1.0 for the concrete cover.

The model of Giuffré, Menegotto and Pinto ([Giuffrè and Pinto, 1970], [Menegotto and Pinto,
1973]) was applied for the longitudinal reinforcement, along with the subsequent
improvements introduced by Filippou et al. [1983]. In order to account for the cyclic
degradation of steel strength depicted by the experimental results without changing the steel
model, a negative value of the parameter a3 was considered [Ref: Seismostruct help,
17
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

Seismosoft (2008)]. Young’s modulus of elasticity for steel was taken equal to 205 GPa,
while the hardening and cyclic behavior parameters were calibrated in order to better
reproduce the experimental results: b = 0.015, R0 = 20, a1 = 19.3. a2 = 0.15, a3 = -0.025 and a4
=15.

3.2 Numerical results


Before presenting the comparison of the unloading stiffness during the cyclic loading between
numerical and experimental results, it is important to consider that the single-degree-of-
freedom systems experience gravity-load-induced overturning moments in addition to those
resulting from lateral inertia forces. Therefore according to the behavior of the structure with
reference to Figure 3.2 it can be seen that for a SDOF system with a given level of lateral
strength, P-delta effects effectively cause a reduction in the lateral resistance. The reduced
effective stiffness implies that the maximum and unloading force amplitude obtained for each
cyclic loading (Figure 2.7) estimated with a numerical model in SeismoStruct, are affected by
the P-delta effects. It becomes necessary to compute through equations (3.4) and (3.5) the
equivalent maximum and unloading lateral force amplitude for each cyclic loading.

,
(3.4)

PDunl i
Feq,unl i Funl i H (3.5)

Figure 3.2. Effect of P-delta on lateral resistence – [Ref: Priestley, M.J.N. Calvi G.M. Kowalsky M.J.
(2007)]

In Figure 3.3, which compares the numerical and experimental results, it can be observed that
for each loading cycle and maximum resistance, the loading and unloading stiffnesses are
very similar.

18
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
Force (kN) 40
20
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 -20 0 10 20 30 40
-40
-60
-80
-100
Numerical results
-120
Experimental results
-140
-160
-180
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.3. Cyclic loading response: comparison between the experimental and numerical results (TP-01).

Moreover the values of alpha-factors computed from equation (2.4) for each cycle of the
hysteresis loop obtained from the numerical results are very close to the unloading stiffness
degradation α* previously calculated with the experimental results (Figure 3.5) and as it was
noted previously from the data of the cyclic test on the bridge piers, they have a trend to
remain constant with increasing values of ductility, which is in accordance to the Takeda
Model.

In the following Figure 3.5 the value of the yielding displacement evaluated according to
method explained in the section 2.3 is reported.

190
160
130
100
70
Force (kN)

40
10
-20
-6 -3 0 3 6 9 12
-50
-80
-110 dy= 8mm; Fy=157 kN
-140
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.4. Value of yielding displacement and Force in the numerical model (TP-01)

19
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

0,6

0,5 Experimental results


Numerical results

0,4

alpha-factor a* 0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1 2 3 4 5
ductility m
Figure 3.5. Alpha factor and displacement ductility comparison between the experimental and numerical
results (TP-01)

To test the validity of the modeling approach, other comparisons between the experimental
and numerical results of the bridge piers with varying axial load are made.

The data taken are identified with the number TP-31 and TP-32; the general geometrical
characteristics, as well as the reinforcement detailing, are presented in Figure 2.2. The
cylinder strength of concrete is 23 MPa and the yield strength of the longitudinal
reinforcement is 374 MPa. The vertical load is constant and equal to 480 kN in the TP-31 and
-160kN in the TP-32.

Figure 3.7 shows the time-histories of lateral displacement (in mm) used in the analysis of
TP-31 and TP-32.

Figure 3.6. Geometrical characteristics and reinforcement detailing (in mm) for TP-31 and TP-32 - Ref:
website of the Kawashima Laboratory (http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp)

20
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

50 40
40 30
30
20
20
10 10

0 0
-10 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 -10
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7
-20
-20
-30
-40 -30

-50
a) b) -40
Figure 3.7. The time-history of lateral displacement for TP-31 a) and TP-32 b) - Ref: website of the
Kawashima Laboratory (http://seismic.cv.titech.ac.jp)

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
Force (kN)

20
0
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -20
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
-40
-60
-80
-100
Numerical results
-120
Experimental results
-140
-160
-180
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.8. Cyclic loading response: comparison between the experimental and numerical results (TP-31).

200
150
100
50
Force (kN)

0
-20 -15 -10 -5 -50 0 5 10 15 20

-100
-150 dy=8 mm; Fy=163 kN
-200
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.9. Yielding displacement and Force in the numerical model (TP-31).

21
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

0,6
Experimental results
0,5 Numerical results

0,4

alpha-factor a*
0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
ductility m
Figure 3.10. Alpha factor and displacement ductility comparison between the experimental and
numerical results (TP-31)

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
Force (kN)

20
0
-60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -20
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-40
-60
-80
-100
Numerical results
-120
Experimental results
-140
-160
-180
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.11. Cyclic loading response: comparison between the experimental and numerical results
(TP-32).

150

100

50
Force (kN)

0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-50

-100
dy=9.2 mm; Fy=104 kN
-150
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.12. Yielding displacement and Force in the numerical model (TP-32).

22
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

0,6
Experimental results
0,5 Numerical results

alpha-factor a*
0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1 2 3 4 5
ductility m
Figure 3.13. Alpha factor and displacement ductility comparison between the experimental and numerical
results (TP-32)

Figure 3.8 to Figure 3.13 show the cyclic response according to numerical and experimental
results and the alpha-factor trend as a function of the displacement ductility corresponding to
the tests identified with TP-31 and TP32 respectively.

The previous considerations about the alpha-factor explained for test TP-01 are still valid, and
therefore it can be concluded that the results obtained from the comparison between the
experimental and the numerical results are satisfactory.

3.3 Influence of the Aspect ratio, the Section ratio and the axial load ratio on the alpha-
factor.
After obtaining satisfactory results from the comparison between the experimental and the
numerical results, in this section the behavior of the alpha-factor is investigated through
numerical computation. The goal is to evaluate how the values of the alpha-factor change with
varying H/d, aspect ratio, and L/d , section ratio of the pier identified with the number TP-31.
in Figure 3.14, where H is the column height, d the section depth and L is the section length
of the pier.

In each numerical model studied an axial load is applied on the pier so that the axial load ratio
σ (=P/fcc*Ag, where P is the axial load, fcc confined compressive strength and Ag the gross
section area) is equal to 0.05.

Moreover when L/d changes, the aspect ratio is fixed (H/L=3) and the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio is fixed to 1.5% of the gross section area Ag.

23
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

Aspect ratio- =0.05 Sectional ratio -H/L=3- =0.05


H/d=10
d d
H/d=7 L 3L

d load direction
H/d=3
5L
H
d
d 10L
Figure 3.14. The aspect ratio H/d and the section ratio used in the numerical computation.

For the time-histories of cyclic loading in the numerical model when H/d=7 and H/d=10 the
displacement in each time step used for H/d=3. shown in Figure 3.7a is increased as the
square of H/d so that the structure can reach displacement ductility values around 6.

The following plots (Figure 3.15) show the cyclic loading response for the numerical models
with different values of the aspect ratio H/d.
160 500
140
400
120
100 300
80
60 200
40 100
Force (kN)
Force (kN)

20
0 0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10-20 0 10 20 30 40 50 -140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
-100
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-40
-60 -200
-80
-100 -300
-120 -400
-140
-160 -500
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
H/d=3. σ=0.05 H/d=7; σ=0.05
50
40
30
20
10
Force (kN)

0
-350-300-250-200-150-100 -50
-10 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-20
-30
-40
-50
Displacement (mm)
H/d=10, σ=0.05
Figure 3.15. Cyclic loading response used to obtain to numerical results for H/d=3; H/d=7and H/d=10.

24
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

The alpha-factor is estimated in the three models according to the formula (2.4).

0,5
0,45 H/d=3 H/d=7 H/d=10
0,4
alpha-factor a* 0,35
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
2 2,5
3,5 3 4 4,5 5 5,5 6
ductility m
Figure 3.16. Alpha factor as a function of the displacement ductility: comparison for H/d=3; H/d=7and
H/d=10.

In Figure 3.16 the plot shows that increasing the slenderness of the structure, or to be more
precise changing the aspect ratio from 3 to 10, the alpha-factor does not change a function of
the displacement ductility and instead assumes values of around 0.07. Therefore observing a
constant trend of the alpha-factor it can be concluded that the aspect ratio doesn’t have a
significant influence on the cases studied.

25
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

The time histories of the lateral displacement used to investigate the effect of the section ratio
on the alpha factor are shown in the Figure 3.17 for L/d=3. L/d=5, L/d=10 and in the Figure
3.7a for L/d=1.
150

50

-50 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7


-150
L/d=3

1000

500

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7
-500

-1000
L/d=5
1000

500

0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
-500

-1000
L/d=10
Figure 3.17. The time histories of the lateral displacement for the different section ratio

26
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

The following plots (Figure 3.18) show the cyclic loading response of the numerical models
with different values of the section ratio L/d.
160 500
140
120 400
100 300
80
60 200
40
100
Force (kN)

Force (kN)
20
0 0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10-20 0 10 20 30 40 50 -140-120-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-40 -100
-60 -200
-80
-100 -300
-120
-400
-140
-160 -500
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
L/d=1; H/d=3; σ=0.05 L/d=5; H/d=3; σ=0.05
1000 1500
800 1200
600 900
400 600
200 300
Force (kN)

Force(kN)
0 0
-700-600-500-400-300-200-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
-200 -300
-400 -600
-600 -900
-800 -1200
-1000 -1500
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
L/d=7; H/d=3; σ=0.05 L/d=10; H/d=3; σ=0.05
Figure 3.18. Cyclic loading response for numerical analyses for L/d=1; L/d=3and; L/d=7 and L/d=10.

The alpha-factor is estimated in the three models according to the formula (2.4).

0,5
0,45 L/d=1 L/d=3 L/d=5 L/d=10
0,4
0,35
alpha-factor a*

0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
3,52,5 4 3
4,5 5
ductility m
Figure 3.19. Alpha factor as a function of the displacement ductility: comparison from numerical analyses
for l/d=1; l/d=5; l/d=7; L/d=10.

From the plot in Figure 3.19 it is observed that the values of alpha-factor are very low (less
than 0.15) and demonstrate a slightly increasing slope.

27
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

Figure 3.21 shows the plot of cyclic loading response obtained from the numerical
computations of the pier having values of the axial load ratio σ reported in Figure 3.20. For
each model the aspect ratio (H/d=3) and the section ratio (L/d=1) are fixed.

Axial load ratio -H/L=3- L/d=1

=0.20
=0.15
=0.10
=0.05
=0.00

Figure 3.20. The axial load used in the numerical computation.

The load history of the lateral displacement used to investigate the effect of the axial load
ratio on the alpha factor is shown in the Figure 3.7a.

200
σ=0
σ=0.05 150
σ=0.10 100
σ=0.15
σ=0.20 50
Force (kN)

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10-50 0 10 20 30 40 50

-100
-150
-200
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.21. Cyclic loading response: comparison between the experimental results for different values of
the axial load ratio.

28
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

The alpha-factor is estimated in each of the three models according to equation (2.4).
0,6
σ=0 σ=0.05 σ=0.10 σ=0.15 σ=0.20
0,5

alpha-factor a* 0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6
ductility m
Figure 3.22. Alpha factor as a function of the displacement ductility: comparison obtained from numerical
analyses for σ=0; σ=0.05; σ=0.10; σ=0.15; σ=020

From Figure 3.22 it is observed that increasing the axial load on the structure gives higher
values of the alpha-factor.

0,5
0,45 H/d=3 H/d=7 H/d=10
alpha-factor a*

0,4
0,35
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
a) Aspect ratio

0,5 0,5
0,45 L/d=1 L/d=3 0,45 σ=0 σ=0.05 σ=0.10 σ=0.15 σ=0.20
0,4 L/d=5 L/d=10 0,4
alpha-factor a*

alpha-factor a*

0,35 0,35
0,3 0,3
0,25 0,25
0,2 0,2
0,15 0,15
0,1 0,1
0,05
0,05
0
0
b) Section ratio c) Axial load ratio

Figure 3.23. Comparison a) Aspect ratio , b) Section ratio and c) Axial load ratio.

From Figure 3.23 the variation of the alpha factor as a function of aspect ratio and axial load
ratio can be observed.

29
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

First of all, Figure 3.20.a and Figure 3.20b record lower values of the alpha-factor compared
to that presented in the Figure 3.20.c.

In particular it is observed that the trend line related to the slenderness of the system could be
considered constant (Figure 3.20.a) while the second one (Figure 3.20.b) related to the section
ratio is slightly increasing with increased values of section ratio.

Figure 3.20.c illustrates that varying the axial load ratio from 0.00 to 0.20 the alpha-factor
tends to increase significantly.

Moreover, it is very interesting to note that the values of the alpha-factor as a function of the
displacement ductility for axial load ratio equal to 0.20 are very close to the unloading
stiffness degradation parameter α provided in the Takeda model (usually equal to 0.5), in fact
it even reaches a value of 0.52.

From these considerations it can be said that alpha-factor as a function of displacement


ductility depends in particular on the axial load ratio.

3.4 Computation of the yielding displacement


The section presents the computation of the yielding displacement by two methods.

The first approach (method 1) is explained in paragraph 2.3. where the yielding displacement
is determined using a trend line set “by eye”, that approximates the necessary loading cycles
to yield the structure. This method has been used in the previous analyses preformed to study
the influence of the aspect ratio, section ratio and axial load ratio on the alpha-factor

The second method (method 2) is introduced by Priesltey, M.J.N. Calvi G.M. Kowalsky M.J.
[2007] (pag 76), through the following equations.

Equation 3.6 is approxiamted for design propose and defines the yielding displacement:

(3.6)
3

The yielding curvature is provided for different section shapes by the following equations for
rectangular concrete column:

2.10

(3.7)

30
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

and for concrete walls:

2.00
(3.8)

where εy, hc and lw are the yield strain of the flexural reinforcement (=fy/Es), the section depth
of the rectangular column and the length of the rectangular walls respectively.

In the numerical models where the goal is to evaluate the influence of the aspect ratio on the
alpha-factor, the yielding displacement obtained was the same for the two different methods.
500
200
400

150 300

100 200

50
Force (kN)

100
Force (kN)
0 0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-15 -10 -5 -50 0 5 10 15 -100

-200
-100
-300
-150
dy=6 mm; Fy=144 kN -400
-200 dy=17 mm; Fy=380 kN
-500
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

H/d=3. σ=0.05 H/d=7; σ=0.05


50
40
30
20
10
Force (kN)

0
-100 -75 -50 -25 -10 0 25 50 75 100
-20
-30
dy=49 mm; Fy=39 kN
-40
-50
Displacement (mm)
H/d=10; σ=0.05
Figure 3.24. Yielding displacement for analytical models with H/d=3; H/d=7and H/d=10 computed
according to method 1 and method 2

31
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

The following plots are related to the analytical models with different section ratio. It is noted
that by computing the yielding displacement through the two formulations, the obtained
values are the same for L/d=1 and L/d=5, while they are very similar for L/d=7 and L/d=10.
500
200
400
150 300

100 200

50
Force (kN)

100

Force (kN)
0 0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-15 -10 -5 -50 0 5 10 15 -100

-200
-100
-300
-150 dy=6 mm; Fy=144 kN -400
-200 dy=17 mm; Fy=380 kN
-500
a) Displacement (mm) b) Displacement (mm)

L/d=1; H/d=3; σ=0.05 L/d=5; H/d=3; σ=0.05

800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

0 0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10
-200 0 10 20 30 40 50 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
-200 0 10 20 30 40 50

-400 -400
-600 dy=32mm; Fy=670 kN -600 dy=29mm; Fy=670 kN
-800 -800
c1) Displacememt (mm) c2) Displacememt (mm)
L/d=7; H/d=3; σ=0.05

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500
Force (kN)

Force (kN)

0 0
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100
-500 -500

-1000 -1000
dy= 51 mm; Fy=1250 kN dy= 55 mm; Fy=1250 kN
-1500 -1500
d1) Displacement (mm) d2) Displacement (mm)
L/d=5; H/d=3; σ=0.05

Figure 3.25. Yielding displacement obtained for analytical models with a) l/d=1; b) l/d=5 according to both
methods, c1) l/d=7; d1) L/d=10 according to method 1 and c2) l/d=7; d2) L/d=10 according to
the method 2.

32
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

Observing such differences regarding the yielding displacement, the values of alpha factor
are recomputed according the formula 2.4.

0,5
L/d=1 L/d=3 L/d=5 L/d=10
0,45
alpha-factor a* 0,4
0,35
0,3
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
2 3
4 5
ductility m
Figure 3.26. Alpha factor as a function of the displacement ductility: comparison relative to analytical
models for l/d=1; l/d=5; l/d=7; L/d=10, where the yielding displacement is computed
according to method 2.

Comparing the plot in the Figure 3.26 with one in the Figure 3.19 it can observed that the
results are very similar. For this reason the previous conclusions about the influence of the
aspect ratio on the alpha-factor are still valid, and therefore it is possible to neglect the small
difference and to take in account only of the value of alpha-factor computed according to the
method 1.

33
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

The following plots are related to the numerical models for different values of the axial load
ratio, the yielding displacement computed by the two methods assumes the same values, the
only exception is in the case σ=0.
150 150

100 100

50 50
Force (kN)

Force (kN)
0 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-50 -50

-100 -100
dy=7mm; Fy=120 kN dy=6 mm; Fy=120 kN
-150 -150
a1) Displacement (mm) a2) Displacement (mm)
σ=0

200 200

150 150

100 100
50 Force (kN) 50
Force (kN)

0 0
-15 -10 -5 -50 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 -50 0 5 10 15

-100 -100
-150 -150
dy=6 mm; Fy=144 kN dy=6mm; Fy=165 kN
-200 -200
b) Displacement (mm) c) Displacement (mm)
σ=0.05 σ=0.10

200 250
150 200
100 150
100
50
Force (kN)

50
Force (kN)

0
0
-20 -15 -10 -5 -50 0 5 10 15 20
-20 -15 -10 -5 -50 0 5 10 15 20
-100 -100
-150 -150
-200 dy=6 mm; Fy=180 kN -200 dy=6 mm; Fy=195 kN
-250 -250
d) Displacement (mm) e) Displacement (mm)
σ=0.15 σ=0.20

Figure 3.27. Yielding displacement relative to a1) σ=0.0; according to method 1; a2) σ=0.0; according to
method 2; b) σ=0.05, c) σ=0.10, d) σ=0.15, e) σ=0.20 according to both methods.

34
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

0,6
σ=0 σ=0.05 σ=0.10 σ=0.15 σ=0.20
0,5

0,4

alpha-factor a*
0,3

0,2

0,1

0
2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6
ductility m
Figure 3.28. Alpha factor as function of the displacement ductility: comparison relative to analytical
models for σ=0; σ=0.05; σ=0.10; σ=0.15; σ=020, where the yielding displacement is
computed according to method 2.

Comparing the plot in the Figure 3.28 with Figure 3.19 it can be observed that the results are
very similar. For that reason the previous conclusions about the influence on the axial load
ratio on the alpha-factor are still valid, and therefore it is possible to neglect the small
difference and to take into account only the value of the alpha-factor computed according to
method 1.

3.5 Alpha- factor as a function of curvature ductility


In order to obtain an equivalent force-displacement response for the intended Takeda model
using a plastic hinge model described in terms of moment and curvature, the alpha-factor is
defined as a function of curvature ductility.

Using lumped-plasticity modeling it could be interesting to define later the hinge


characteristics and initial stiffness in terms of moment-curvature by using a non linear time
history analysis program (e.g. Ruaumoko).

Recalling the alpha-factor definition, first of all it is necessary to define the curvature ductility
for each loading cycle, given by equation (3.9)

(3.9)

Where m(i) and y are the maximum curvature for each loading cycle and the yielding
curvature respectively. The curvatures are known because they depend on the maximum
deformation amplitude Dm(i) and the yielding displacement Dy defined in the paragraph 2.3.

35
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

Dm(i) can also be expressed by equation (3.10)

(3.10)

where H and Lp ( ≥ Lsp, where Lsp is defined in the formula (3.1)) are the height and the length
of the plastic hinge of the cantilever system defined with formula (3.11), respectively.

knowing that k=0.08 and Lc is the length of the critical section to the point of contraflexure in
the member, the length of the plastic hinge can be defined by equation 3.11.

(3.11)
while Dy can be defined through the following equation

(3.12)

In this section the alpha-factor is defined as a function of the curvature ductility, according to
the following equation

1 (3.13)

where is defined by equation (3.14) specifying that E is the elastic modulus of the
system, is the unloading moment of inertia for each loading cycle, formula (3.15), and
Iin is the initial moment of inertia of the single-degree-of-freedom system, formula (3.16).

(3.14)

(3.15)

36
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

(3.16)

In equation (3.15) (=Fm*H) and (=Funl*H) are the maximum and the
unloading moment for each loading cycle (i) respectively.

The unloading curvature for each cyce of loading , is known because it can be
obtained by the unloading deformation amplitude through equation (3.17), defined in
Figure 2.7 and also given by the following equation

(3.17)

and the residual curvature is defined by

(3.18)

By defining the alpha-factor aM- as function of the curvature ductility μ , the following plots
(Figure 3.29 to Figure 3.31) show how the values of the alpha-factor, formula (3.13), change
when varying H/d, the aspect ratio and L/d, the section ratio and σ, the axial load ratio
according to the analyses done for the alpha-factor as a function of the displacement ductility.

1,4
H/L=3 H/L=7 H/L=10
1,2
alpha-factor α*M-

1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Ductility μ
Figure 3.29. Alpha factor as a function of the curvature ductility: comparison for analytical results for
H/d=3; H/d=7and H/d=10.

37
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

1,40
L/d=1 L/d=3 L/d=5 L/d=10
1,20
1,00

alpha-factor α*M-
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
2 7 12 17
ductility μ
Figure 3.30. Alpha factor as a function of the curvature ductility: comparison for analytical results for
l/d=1; l/d=5; l/d=7; L/d=10.

1,40
σ=0 σ=0.05 σ=0.10 σ=0.15 σ=0.20
1,20
1,00
0,80
alpha-factor α* M-

0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
3 6
9 12 15
ductility μ
Figure 3.31. Alpha factor as function of the curvature ductility: comparison relative to numerical results
for σ=0; σ=0.05; σ=0.10; σ=0.15; σ=020.

From the plots (Figure 3.29 and Figure 3.30) it is firstly observed that when the effects of
several values of the aspect ratio and section ratio are considered on the unloading stiffness,
the alpha factor has a variable slope with increasing values of curvature ductility.

While in the analysis where the axial load ratio is the variable parameter, the behavior of the
alpha factor has a constant trend as a function of the curvature ductility (Figure 3.31).

The uniform tendency of the alpha-factor noted to increase with axial load on the SDOF
model was already highlighted in the previous case studies where the unloading stiffness
degradation parameter was defined as a function of the displacement ductility.

Moreover it is very interesting to note that the only parameter, the axial load ratio, considered
influential in the behavior of the alpha-factor as a function of displacement ductility still gives
a constant slope with increasing values of curvature ductility in accordance with the Takeda
Model that fixes a constant value of the unloading stiffness degradation parameter for
different displacement ductility.
38
Chapter 3: Analytical predictions

From this study it is observed that in the Moment-curvature Takeda model, in particular in the
plots related to the aspect ratio and section ratio, the unloading stiffness degradation
parameter could only be given using a non-linear expression, surely not simple to implement.
Therefore this study supports the definition of the alpha-factor introduced by the force-
displacement Takeda Model.

39
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

4 SMALL DISPLACEMENT NONLINEAR TIME-HISTORY


ANALYSES
4.1 Description
The effect of using different alpha ratios is investigated in this section by using non-linear
time-history analyses of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. The analysis are carried
out using the computer program Ruaumoko [Carr, 2004]

4.2 Accelerograms
Non linear time-history analyses are performed for three ground motions; two of them are
selected from a suite of historical recordings from magnitude M=6 to M=7.3 earthquakes
which were scaled to match the uniform hazard spectrum for Los Angeles at an uniform
hazard level of 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years (SAC Joint Venture 1997), and the
third one is a historical record for California that have been used extensively in past.

The three ground motions are listed below:

ƒ LA09 - Landers EQ, 28 Jun. 92. Yermo Fire Station, fault normal component.

ƒ LA19 - North Palm Springs EQ, 8 Jul. 86, fault normal component.

ƒ El Centro - El Centro EQ, 1940, S00E component.

4.3 Ground- Motion Time Histories


The acceleration time-history of the three ground motions is presented indicating the peak
ground acceleration – PGA. All the time histories are scaled to a similar intensity.

The peak ground acceleration points are highlighted in the plots and general properties are
also reported in Table 4.1. For every record the PGA value, the time at which it occurs and
other duration properties are reported. Regarding the duration, this considers the first and the
last time at which a threshold acceleration value is crossed in the record, which is taken as
0.05g and 0.10g respectively.

40
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

Table 4.1. Ground motion characteristic parameters.

PGA Interval ag>0.05g Interval ag>0.10g

t acc. ti tf ti - tf ti tf ti - tf

[s] [g] [s] [s] [s] [s] [s] [s]

LA09 16.30 0.5196 2.96 43.96 41.00 12.30 31.32 19.02

LA19 2.48 1.0190 0.32 22.68 22.36 0.32 14.44 14.12

El 2.12 0.3483 0.90 26.76 25.86 1.40 26.08 24.68


Centro

Figure 4.1. Time histories of earthquake ground motions

As a general comment in terms of PGA, it is clear that the LA19 record is significantly more
severe than the others, being almost twice in amplitude than LA09 and three times than El
Centro.

Regarding the duration parameters, if the threshold of 0.05g acceleration is considered the
LA09 record is two times longer than the others whilst for a higher acceleration threshold of
0.10g the differences in duration interval are small.

41
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

4.4 Response Spectra


For each earthquake ground motion, the relative displacement and acceleration response
spectrum for 5% of critical damping are presented below for a period range of 0 to 4 s with an
increment of 0.01s.

Fi
gure 4.2. Linear elastic response spectra for the LA09 record.

Figure 4.3. Linear elastic response spectra for the LA19 record.

42
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

Figure 4.4. Linear elastic response spectra for the EC record.

4.5 Ground Motion Spectra Comparison and Comment


To compare and comment on the differences between the different ground motions, different
spectra have been plotted in the same graph, as shown in Figure 4.5.

Regarding the frequency content and the spectral responses it is noted that:

ƒ The most severe condition in terms of acceleration response is given by the LA19
ground motion, for which the low period spectral acceleration from 0.0 to 0.5s is about
three times higher than that of other ground motions whilst for a period range of 0.5 to
2.0s LA09 becomes critical in terms of spectral acceleration.

Figure 4.5.Comparison of the linear elastic response spectra for the 3 ground motions use. Damping is 5%
of critical

43
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

4.6 Modelling
To investigate the effect of using different alpha values for practical purposes, a cantilever
column exhibiting hysteretic moment-curvature relationship and its equivalent SDOF (spring)
with the same initial stiffness have been modeled and analyzed in Ruaumoko 2D [Carr, 2004],
as shown in Figure 4.6.

max

3EI
K=
H3
H EI m

Figure 4.6. Modeling SDOF column and spring

The hysteretic behavior used is the modified Takeda hysteretic model [Otani 1974] reported
in Figure 4.7, where the unloading stiffness degradation parameter α assumes values [0.0;
0.25; 0.50] and the reloading stiffness β is set equal to 0.0.

Figure 4.7. Modified Takeda Model – Ref: Ruaumoko 2D, Appendix [Carr, 2004]

The small displacement analysis regime and an integration time step of 0.005s is utilized in
the analyses.

The models analyzed are prepared with a series of natural periods of 0.5s, 1.0s, 2.0s and 3.0
respectively. The intensity of the accelerograms are adjusted to achieve displacement ductility
demands of 2, 4 and 6 respectively.

44
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

4.7 Case-study: structural periods


Non-linear time history analysis of the modeled column requires the definition of a plastic
hinge length, which can be defined as the region of concentrated plasticity near the base of the
cantilever and can be calculated by using Equation 4.1 [Priestley et al 2007]

0.10
(4.1)

where K and Lsp are respectively equal to 0.04 and 0.25 and the factor is related to the
aspect ratio of the cantilever by the equation Ar(=H/LW ). Assuming the aspect ratio of 5 and
10, the corresponding values of and the length of plastic hinge are presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Height and Plastic hinge used in SDOF column


height Lw Lp
Ar
m m m
5 3 1.15
15
10 1.5 1

The moment of inertia of the sections are fixed so as to achieve undamped natural period of
0.5s, 1s, 2s and 3s respectively. The corresponding values are reported in Table 4.3

Table 4.3. Moment of Inertia corresponding to different undamped natural periods of the SDOF column.
T
3 2 1 0.5
sec
I
4 0.002 0.004 0.015 0.070
m

The Young's elasticity modulus E is equal to 25740 MPa.

The lateral stiffness and yield strength of the equivalent spring can be calculated by using the
relation kx=3EI/H3 and Fy=M/H respectively for a known moment of resistance, M and the
height of the cantilever, H.

In the following plots it is possible to observe the effect of using different alpha ratios on the
SDOF running the non-linear time history analyses with the accelerograms identified with
La09 and Elce.

The figures show the variation of the ratio of the maximum displacement demand of the
equivalent spring and the cantilever as a function of the undamped natural period of vibration.

The results obtained by non linear time history analyses with LA09 ground motion and are
reported in Figure 4.8 to 4.11, are calculated with a ratio between the column height, H and
the length of the plastic hinge, Lp equal to 13 in the first group and 15 in the second group
respectively.

45
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

Before commenting on the results it is important to bear in mind the probable behavior of the
SDOF system when the value of alpha-factor is equal to zero. The expected results from the
non linear time histories analyses on the column and the spring modeled with hysteresis
behavior defined by a constant unloading stiffness (α=0) should show significant similarity in
terms of the displacements, but different displacements when the unloading stiffness is
defined differently.

46
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

LA09 ground motion


Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,20 1,20

1,00 1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)


0,80 0,80

0,60 0,60 m=2


m=2 m=4
0,40 0,40
m=4 m=6
0,20 m=6 0,20

0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,20

1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80

0,60 m=2
m=4
0,40
m=6
0,20

0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)


Figure 4.8. Effect of using different alpha ratios - SDOF: H/Lp=13 – LA09

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,20 1,20

1,00 1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80 0,80

0,60 0,60
m=2 m=2
0,40 0,40
m=4 m=4
0,20 m=6 0,20 m=6

0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,20

1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80

0,60
m=2
0,40
m=4
0,20 m=6

0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)


Figure 4.9. Effect of using different alpha ratios - SDOF: H/Lp=15 – LA09

47
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

From figures 4.8 and 4.9 it is observed that when the alpha-factor is equal to zero the ratio
between the maximum displacement of the column and the equivalent spring is close to 1. as
expected. However, before making comments on the effect of the alpha-factor on the SDOF
system it is important to pay attention to the results of the non linear time histories analysis
with El Centro ground motion computed on models with the properties mentioned in Table
4.3. These results are shown Figures 4.10 and 4.11

48
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

El Centro ground motion

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,20 1,40

1,00 1,20
1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)


0,80
0,80
0,60 m= 2
m= 2 0,60
m= 4
0,40
m= 4 0,40 m= 6
0,20 m= 6
0,20
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,40
1,20
1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80
m= 2
0,60
m= 4
0,40 m= 6
0,20
0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)

Figure 4.10. Effect of using different alpha ratios - SDOF: H/Lp=13 – ELCE

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,20 1,60
1,40
1,00
1,20
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80
1,00
0,60 0,80
m= 2 0,60 m= 2
0,40
m= 4 m= 4
0,40
0,20 m= 6 m= 6
0,20
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,20

1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80

0,60
m= 2
0,40
m= 4
0,20 m= 6

0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)


Figure 4.11. Effect of using different alpha ratios - SDOF: H/Lp=15 – ELCE

49
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

As is evident from Figure 4.10 and 4.11, when the alpha-factor in the hysteretic behaviour of
the models is set to zero the results are not correct, because the maximum displacement of the
column and the spring differ significantly especially for higher values of ductility. Such
inconsistency of the results points towards the inadequacy of the equivalence between the
column and the spring models. One possible reason behind such discrepancy could be
associated, with the transformation Ruaumoko undertakes to represent the combined column
and hinge system as an element with a single stiffness value. However, this is currently
unclear.

To gain further insight into the problem additional non-linear time history analyses are
performed with accelerograms identified above as LA09 and LA19 and ELCE.

The geometrical parameters used in modeling the cantilever columns are presented below in
Table 4.4

Table 4.4. Height and Plastic hinge used in SDOF column


height Lw Lp
Ar
m m m
5 3 1.15
15 10 1.5 1
15 1 0.95
5 6 2.05
30 10 3 1.75
15 2 1.65
5 9 2.95
45 10 4.5 2.5
15 3 2.35

The stiffness properties of the cantilever column corresponding to different undamped natural
periods of oscillation are presented in the table below.

Table 4.5. Moment of Inertia estimated fixing the fundamental period of the SDOF column.
T
3 2 1 0.5
sec
H1 (m)
0.002 0.004 0.015 0.070
15
4 H2 (m)
I (m ) 0.015 0.030 0.150 0.550
30
H3(m)
0.050 0.100 0.400 0.500
45

The equivalent springs are modeled as hysteretic systems with initial stiffness equal to that of
the column and yield strength tuned to obtain displacement ductility equal to 4.

50
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

LA09 ground motion

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,80 1,60
1,60 1,40
1,40 1,20
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)


1,20
1,00
1,00
0,80 H1/Lp = 13
0,80
H1/Lp = 13 0,60 H2/Lp = 15
0,60
H2/Lp = 15 H3/Lp = 15
0,40 0,40
H3/Lp = 15
0,20 0,20
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,60
1,40
1,20
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,00
0,80 H1/Lp = 13
0,60 H2/Lp = 15
0,40 H3/Lp = 15
0,20
0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)

Figure 4.12. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=5 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,60 1,40
1,40 1,20
1,20 1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,00
0,80
0,80
H1/Lp = 15 0,60 H1/Lp = 15
0,60
H2/Lp = 18 0,40 H2/Lp = 18
0,40
H3/Lp = 18 H3/Lp = 18
0,20 0,20
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25


1,40
1,20
1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80
0,60 H1/Lp = 15
0,40 H2/Lp = 18
H3/Lp = 18
0,20
0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)

Figure 4.13. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=10 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m

51
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,60 1,40
1,40 1,20
1,20
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,00

Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)


1,00
0,80
0,80
H1/Lp = 16 0,60 H1/Lp = 16
0,60
H2/Lp = 18 0,40 H2/Lp = 18
0,40
H3/Lp = 19 H3/Lp = 19
0,20 0,20
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,40
1,20
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,00
0,80
0,60 H1/Lp = 16
0,40 H2/Lp = 18
H3/Lp = 19
0,20
0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)


Figure 4.14. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=15 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m

LA19 ground motion

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
2,00 1,80
1,80 1,60
1,60 1,40
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,40
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,20
1,20
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,80
H1/Lp = 13 0,60 H1/Lp = 13
0,60
0,40 H2/Lp = 15 0,40 H2/Lp = 15
0,20 H3/Lp = 15 0,20 H3/Lp = 15
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,80
1,60
1,40
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60 H1/Lp = 13
0,40 H2/Lp = 15
0,20 H3/Lp = 15
0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)


Figure 4.15. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=5 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m

52
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,80 1,60
1,60 1,40
1,40
1,20
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)


1,20
1,00
1,00
0,80
0,80
0,60 H1/Lp = 15 0,60 H1/Lp = 15
0,40 H2/Lp = 18 0,40 H2/Lp = 18
0,20 H3/Lp = 18 0,20 H3/Lp = 18
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,40
1,20
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,00
0,80
0,60
H1/Lp = 15
0,40
H2/Lp = 18
0,20 H3/Lp = 18
0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)


Figure 4.16. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=10 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
2,00 1,60
1,80
1,40
1,60
1,20
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,40
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,20 1,00
1,00 0,80
0,80 0,60
0,60 H1/Lp = 16 H1/Lp = 16
0,40 H2/Lp = 18
0,40 H2/Lp = 18
0,20 H3/Lp = 19 0,20 H3/Lp = 19
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25


1,40
1,20
1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80
0,60
H1/Lp = 16
0,40
H2/Lp = 18
0,20 H3/Lp = 19
0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)


Figure 4.17. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=15 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m

53
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

El Centro ground motion


Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25

1,40 1,40

1,20 1,20

Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)


Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,00 1,00

0,80 0,80

0,60 0,60 H1/Lp = 13


H1/Lp = 13 0,40 H2/Lp = 15
0,40
H2/Lp = 15 H3/Lp = 15
0,20 0,20
H3/Lp = 15
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0

1,40
1,20
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

1,00
0,80
H1/Lp = 13
0,60
H2/Lp = 15
0,40 H3/Lp = 15
0,20
0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
Initial Period Ti (s)
Figure 4.18. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=5 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,20 1,40

1,00 1,20
1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80
0,80
0,60
H1/Lp = 15 0,60 H1/Lp = 15
0,40 H2/Lp = 18
H2/Lp = 18 0,40
0,20 H3/Lp = 18 H3/Lp = 18
0,20
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,20

1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80

0,60
H1/Lp = 15
0,40
H2/Lp = 18
0,20 H3/Lp = 18

0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)


Figure 4.19. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=10 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m

54
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.5 Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0.25
1,20 1,40

1,00 1,20
1,00

Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)


Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80
0,80
0,60
H1/Lp = 16 0,60 H1/Lp = 16
0,40 H2/Lp = 18
H2/Lp = 18 0,40
0,20 H3/Lp = 19 H3/Lp = 19
0,20
0,00 0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s) Initial Period Ti (s)

Difference in SDOF response for alpha = 0


1,20

1,00
Δ max(α M-f)/D max (aF-D)

0,80

0,60
H1/Lp = 16
0,40
H2/Lp = 18
0,20 H3/Lp = 19

0,00
0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

Initial Period Ti (s)


Figure 4.20. Effect of using different alpha ratios – Ar=15 – H1=15m; H2=30m; H3=45m

From the plot from figures 4.12 to 4.20 it is observed that the maximum displacement
response of the column and the equivalent spring vary within the range of 80% to 120%. It is
again clear that while the results should be the same for α=0, large discrepancies have been
obtained. This is despite the fact that the same strength period and hysteretic model have been
specified.

The response histories of the columns and the equivalent springs are compared in the
following section to identity the possible sources of discrepacies.

In the following section, the SDOF systems having the properties indicated in Table 4.6 with
ductility equal to 4 and damping equal to zero are analyzed.

Table 4.7. Properties of the SDOF column.


Case T H Lp
Ar Lw Accelerogram
studied sec m m
1 1 15 10 1.5 1 Elcentro
2 2 45 15 3 1 Elcentro
3 3 15 10 4.5 2.5 L19

The cases studied 1 and 3. obtained from the analyses computed previously, are chosen taking
into account that they are particular analyses where Ruaumoko looks to evaluate the real
behavior of the SDOF, when the models have a hysteresis behavior with a constant unloading
stiffness. While the second case is a new system considered interesting, chosen to explain in
better way the numerical issue observed.

55
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

The following plots present a comparison between the displacement demands and the
hysteresis loops in terms of force and displacement obtained from non linear time history
analyses on the column and spring models with properties mentioned in the table 4.7 and
unloading stiffness proportional to an alpha-factor in the beginning equal to zero and
afterwards set to 0.50.

56
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

0,06
0,05
SPRING
0,04

Displacement (m)
COLUMN
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,00
-0,01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-0,02
-0,03
-0,04
-0,05
Time (sec)
a)
10
8
6
4
2
Force (kN)

0
-0,06 -0,04 -0,02 0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06
-2
-4
-6
-8
SPRING COLUMN
-10
b) Displacement (m)

Figure 4.21. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loop in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models -
System 1 – α=0

0,08
0,06 SPRING
Displacement (m)

COLUMN
0,04
0,02
0,00
-0,02 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

-0,04
-0,06
Time (sec)
a)
10
8
6
4
2
Force (kN)

0
-0,06 -0,04 -0,02 0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08
-2
-4
-6
-8
SPRING COLUMN
-10
b) Displacement (m)

Figure 4.22. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loops in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models -
System 1 – α=0.5.

57
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

0,12
0,10
SPRING
0,08

Displacement (mm)
COLUMN
0,06
0,04
0,02
0,00
-0,02 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-0,04
-0,06
-0,08
-0,10
Time (sec)
a)
5
4
3
2
1
Force (kN)

0
-0,10 -0,05 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15
-1
-2
-3
-4
SPRING COLUMN
-5
b) Displacement (mm)

Figure 4.23. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loops in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models -
System 2 – α=0

0,12
0,10
SPRING
0,08
Displacement (m)

COLUMN
0,06
0,04
0,02
0,00
-0,02 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-0,04
-0,06
-0,08
-0,10
Time (sec)
a)
5
4
3
2
1
Force (kN)

0
-0,10 -0,05 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15
-1
-2
-3
-4
SPRING COLUMN
-5
b) Displacement (m)

Figure 4.24. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loops in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models -
System 2 – α=0.5.

58
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

0,25
SPRING
0,20

Displacement (m)
COLUMN
0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-0,05
Time (sec)
a)
3
3
2
2
1
Force (kN)

1
0
-0,05 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25
-1
-1
-2
SPRING COLUMN
-2
b) Displacement (m)

Figure 4.25. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loop s in terms of Force and displacement of Column and SDOF spring models -
System 3– a=0

0,15
SPRING
0,10
Displacement (m)

COLUMN

0,05

0,00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-0,05

-0,10
Time (sec)
a)
5
4
3
2
1
Force (kN)

0
-0,10 -0,05 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15
-1
-2
-3
-4
SPRING COLUMN
-5
b) Displacement (m)

Figure 4.26. a) Comparison of displacements of Column and SDOF spring models; b) Comparison of
hysteresis loops in terms of Force and displacement of column and SDOF spring models -
System 3– α=0.5.

59
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

In the above cases studied, Ruaumoko returns equivalent results for the column and spring in
terms of resistances but in the mean time it is possible to note that the numerical issue is
readable, in particular for the relative displacements. The maximum displacements can be
considered very similar for the cases examined

Given such observations and without neglecting the issues relative to the zero alpha-factor
obtained from Ruaumoko for the last cases studied in which some error exists, despite of not
being very high, it can be safely said that the aplha factor is an important parameter for
defining the equivalent spring systems.

As it is observed from the plots relative to α=0.50 the effect of the alpha-factor is very clear.
In fact it is possible to note that when the unloading stiffness degradation parameter is not
zero the peak and the relative displacements of the column and the equivalent spring are not
the same. The last observation means that the alpha-factor as a function of the displacement
ductility, equal to 0.50, has a different effect compared to the one defined in terms of
moment-curvature.

The question that remains is then why the displacements of the column and the spring are
different when the alpha-factor is equal to 0.50. The reason for this can seen by considering
the hysteretic response of the SDOF system 3 and the the column, subject to record La19,
shown in terms of moment-curvature and force-displacement for an alpha factor equal to 0.50.

a) b)
Figure 4.27. a) Time-history response in terms of a)Moment-Curvature and b) Force-Displacement for
SDOF column System 3– a=0.5

The characteristic properties of system 3 are the moment of resistance, M, equal to 37 kNm,
the elastic modulus E equal to 25740 MPa and the moment of inertia I equal to 0.002 m4. The
yielding curvature y (=M/EI) is equal to 0.00072. (neglecting the real stiffness of RC
sections changes at flexural cracking). From the moment curvature loops (Fig 4.27 a) that
follow the Takeda rule, the yielding curvature has the same value evaluated previously with
the known properties of the system.

In the plot of Figure 4.27 b) the yielding displacement is equal to 0.057, while if Δy is
computed according to yH2/3 it will be 0.052 m.

60
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

Taking from the plots the maximum curvature and displacement max=0.011m-1. Δmax=0.20m
respectively, the SDOF system is subjected to a displacement ductility demand of only 4 at
point A, but the corresponding curvature-ductility demand is 15.

Moreover in figure 4.47 a) the point B, equal to 0.008 m-1. represents the residual curvature r
that have been also computed by the next formula obtaining the same value:

.
0.011 0.00072 15 (4.2)

0.0082

where μ is the curvature ductility.

Therefore it can said that the values of y, max and r obtained by the mentioned formulas
are very close to ones obtained by non linear time history analyses undertaken by Ruaumoko.

The next considerations are relative to the hysteresis loop in terms of force and displacement
for the column and SDOF spring models examined previously, but in this case the objective
is to explore why the displacements of the column and the spring are different when the
alpha-factor is equal to 0.50.

Given the properties of the column model the properties of the SDOF spring are found to be
the following: stiffness kx (=3EI/H3) of 46 kN/m and yielding force Fy (=M/H) of 2.5kN.

Observing the plot in figure 4.28, the unloading displacement (point B) is equal to 0.09 m for
the spring and 0,12 m for column. Such difference of displacements is explained through the
following formulas.

Using the expression 4.3 defined with displacement ductility  μΔ, equal to 4. the unloading
stiffness of the spring assumes the same value obtained from the plot.

, (4.3)

where the unloading stiffness is given by the following formula according to Takeda Model

.
1
(4.4)

61
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

and Fun is the unloading force coincides with the yielding force in the first loading cycle, since
zero strain-hardening was considered here.

To determine the unloading displacement of the column Equation 4.5 can be applied.

(4.5)
, 0.616
3

(4.6)
, ,

From Equation 4.5 the unloading displacement is equal to 0,616 and this is different from the
one obtained for the spring. It is also necessary to observe that the values of the unloading
displacement relative to the column by formula 4.5 and by Ruaumoko are not very close. The
differences between the predicted and observed unloading displacements for the column
model have not been accounted for here this is an item for future research. The manner in
which the results of non linear analyses vary using a value of alpha-factor equal to zero and
0.50 should, however clearly be taken into consideration.

Figure 4.28. Hysteresis loop in terms of Moment and curvature relative to SDOF column

From this study it can be argued that the lumped plasticity Takeda model defined with
moment – curvature characteristics, does not correspond to the force-displacement Takeda
model. Such a conclusion is expected. In fact the discussion in chapter 3 shows that the values
of alpha-factor as a function of the curvature ductility are not equal to the ones evaluated as a
function of the displacement ductility.

It can be said that alpha-factor can have two formulations: in terms of moment-curvature or in
terms force-displacement, but for the results obtained in the chapter 3. the unloading stiffness
degradation parameter as a function of the displacement ductility can be defined with a linear
62
Chapter 4: Small displacement nonlinear time-history analyses

expression that supports the definition of the alpha-factor introduced by force-displacement


Takeda Model. Therefore the unloading stiffness of the column (for example in the case of
bridge pier) can be computed using a spring taking into account the effect of the alpha-factor
in the two different systems.

63
Chapter 5: Conclusions

5 CONCLUSIONS
Concrete structures exhibit a reduction of the stiffness as a function of the ductility and one of
the best methods introduced to explain such variation is the hysteresis model by Takeda. For
this reason the current research has focused on the unloading stiffness as a function of the
ductility and other characteristics of the structure.

The analysis and the related conclusions are the following

• As was shown in Chapter 2. analyses were performed using experimental results


available from the Kawashima Laboratory of the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

The results demonstrated that the alpha-factor is constant as a function of the displacement
ductility and always remains below 0.5. Such a conclusion is in accordance to the Takeda
Hysteresis Model because it proposes to use a constant α (normally between 0.0 and 0.6) to
compute the unloading stiffness for different values of ductility.

• As was shown in Chapter 3, a fibre - element numerical model was prepared with a
single-degree-of- freedom (SDOF) oscillator by using the computer program
SeismoStruct to simulate the hysteretic behavior observed through experimental
analysis. After testing its efficiency, the model was used to study the unloading
stiffness behavior as a function of the displacement ductility of SDOF systems having
different section ratio, aspect ratio and axial load ratio.

From the analyses performed it was observed that the alpha factor depends on the axial load
ratio but not on the slenderness and the aspect ratio of the system.

In fact, with varying axial load ratio the values of alpha-factor increase as a function of the
displacement ductility. In particular it is observed that for an axial load ratio equal to 0.20 the
unloading stiffness degradation parameter α is very close to the values of 0.5 commonly used
for RC column sections.

From such observations it can be concluded that alpha-factor as a function of displacement


ductility depends on the axial load ratio.

An additional observation was that the unloading stiffness degradation parameter is simpler to
compute as a function of displacement ductility than in terms of the moment-curvature. In
64
Chapter 5: Conclusions

fact, it was shown that a non-linear expression for the alpha-factor would be required if
modeling using moment – curvature characteristics.

In chapter 3, a lumped-plasticity model approach is discussed, that follows the unloading


rules defined by Takeda for hysteresis cycles. In this way it was possible to analyze the SDOF
stiffness as a function of the curvature ductility with varying structural parameters mentioned
previously. Using Ruaumoko 2D, non linear time history analyses were run with a series of
accelerograms first on a cantilever column defined by hysteretic moment-curvature relation
and then on a SDOF spring having the same initial stiffness as the column but the hysteretic
behaviour in this cased being defined in terms of force-displacement relationship. For these
analyses it was not possible to get Ruaumoko to correctly evaluate the real behavior of the
cases studied. When the alpha-factor was set equal to zero SDOF responses in terms of
moment-curvature and force-displacements were not seem to be the same in the non linear
time history analyses. Because of such numerical problems it was not possible clearly
demonstrate the effect of the alpha-factor on the SDOF response.

As such, a final conclusion is that this study has raised questions about the sensitivity of
lumped plasticity analyses to the input values. This uncertainty should be investigated further
as a part of future research.

65
Appendix

6 APPENDIX

Ruaumoko 2D: Input file used for column SDOF simulation presented in Chapter 4:

Units: kN, m, sec

201010000 ! Principal Analysis Option

2 1 1 1 1 0 9.810 0 0 0.005 90 1.0 ! Frame Control Parameters

0 10 10 0 1 10 0.150 0.30 ! Output Intervals and Plotting Control Parameters

00 ! Iteration Control and Wave Velocities

NODES 1

1 0 0 111000

2 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

ELEMENTS 1

1 112

PROPS

1 FRAME ! Section Properties

10040000 ! Basic section properties

25740000 15444000 0.16 0 0.015000000 0 0 0 ! Elastic Properties

00100000 ! Member bi-linear factors and hinge properties

0 0 123 -123 0 0 ! yiel beam condition

0012 ! Stiffness degradetion Parameters

WEIGHTS 0 ! Seismic Weights (kN)

66
Appendix

1 0 0 0

2 100 0 0

LOADS ! Gravity Loads (kN)

10 0 0

20 0 0

EQUAKE EC_mod.txt

4 1 0.02 10 -1 0 0 1

67
Appendix

Ruaummoko 2D: Input file used for spring SDOF simulation presented in Chapter 4

Units: kN, m, sec

201010000 ! Principal Analysis Option

2 1 1 1 1 0 9.810 0 0 0.005 90 1.0 ! Frame Control Parameters

0 10 10 0 1 10 0.150 0.30 ! Output Intervals and Plotting Control Parameters

00 ! Iteration Control and Wave Velocities

NODES 1

1 0 0 111000

2 0 0 011000

ELEMENTS 1

1 112

PROPS

1 SPRING ! Section Properties

1 4 0 0 343.2 0 0 0 0 ! Basic section properties

8.2 -8.2 0 0 0 0 ! Yield surface

0012 ! Stiffness degradetion Parameters

WEIGHTS 0 ! Seismic Weights (kN)

1 0 0 0

2 100 0 0

LOADS ! Gravity Loads (kN)

10 0 0

20 0 0

EQUAKE EC_mod.txt

4 1 0.02 10 -1 0 0 1

68
References

7 REFERENCES

A.A. Correia, J. A. (October 12-17, 2008). Force-based versus displacement-based formulations in the
cyclic nonlinear analysis of RC Frames. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Beijing, China.

Carr, A. (2007). Ruaumoko 2D – Inelastic Dynamic Analysis, Departement of Civil Engineering.


University of Canterbury, Christstchurch, New Zeland.

Chopra, A. K. (2000). Dynamics of Structures. USA: Dynamics of Structures, Pearson Education.

Filippou, F. P. (1983). Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete


joints. Earthquake Engineering Research Centre. University of California, Berkeley, USA: Report
UCB/EERC-83/19.

Giuffrè, A. a. (1970). Il comportamento del cemento armato per sollecitazioni cicliché di forte
intensità. Giornale del Génio Civile.

Kabeyasawa, S. O. (1983). Analysis of the full-scale Seven storey Reinforced Concrete Test structure.

Lin, C. a. (1975). Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete shells of general form. Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE 101:ST3 .

Mander, J. P. (1998). Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering. ASCE 114:8 , 1804-1826.

Martínez-Rueda, J. a. (1997). Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Materials and Structures
30, 139-147.

Menegotto, M. a. (1973). Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes
in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending.
Symp. Resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well defined repeated loads .

Neuenhofer, A. F. (1997). Evaluation of nonlinear frame finite-element models. Journal of Structural


Engineering 123:7. 958-966.

69
References

Otani, S. a. (1972.). Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frames during Earthquake.


Structural Research Series No. 392 .

Paulay, T. P. (1982). Seismic Design of Reinforceed Concrete and Mansonary Buildings. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Priesley, M. C. (2007). Displacement-based Seismic Design of the Structures. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press.

Priestley, M. C. (n.d.). Effects of damping modeling on results of time-history analysis of RC Bridges.

Priestley, M. S. (1996). (1996). Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. John Wiley & Sons.Scott,
M.H., Fenves, G.L. (2006). Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam-column
elements. Journal of Structural Engineering 132:2 , 244-252.

Priestley, M. S. (1996). Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Seismostruct. (2004). A computer program for processing strong motion data. Retrieved from
http://www.seismosoft.com.

T.J. Sullivan, T. P. (October 12-17, 2008). P-Delta effects on tall RC Frame – Wall Buildings. T.J.
Sullivan, T.H. Pham and G.M. Calvi The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
October 12-17. Beijing, China.

Takeda, T. M. (1970). Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated Earthquakes. ASCE, Journal of the
Structural Division, Vol. 96, No. ST12, , pp. 2557 - 2573.

Takizawa Omote, Y. a. (1974). Nonlinear Earthquake Response Study on the Reinforced Concrete
Chimney. Architectural Institute of Japan , No. 215, pp. 21-32.Part 1 Model Tests and Analysis (in
Japanese), Transactions.

70

You might also like