A one hour course on
Nonlinear Modeling of Structures
Filip C. Filippou
Professor of Structural Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Computational framework for earthquake simulation
at Berkeley
OpenSees (OPEN Software for Earthquake Engineering Simulation)
http://opensees.berkeley.edu (last release 2.2.0, August 2010)
for teaching and concept development
FEDEASMatLab
http://fedeaslab.berkeley.edu (last release 3.1 July 2010)
Element Selection in EQ Engineering Practice
Criteria
Economy in model development and result interpretation considering parameter
sensitivity and multiple ground motions
Knowledge and experience of analysis team
Detail of response (global, regional or local) and accuracy
Selection (in decreasing popularity and increasing cost and expectations)
Linear elastic elements of any type (1d, 2d, 3d)
Nonlinear beam and column elements with plastic hinges
Nonlinear beam and column elements with material response integration
(fiber, fiberhinge, inelastic beamcolumn finite elements)
2d and 3d finite elements (few robust constitutive models, few advanced
features when compared with expectations: e.g. bondslip, buckling of
reinforcement, large discrete cracks, shear sliding, local buckling, fatigue,
tearing of steel, etc)
BeamColumn Models
Concentrated plasticity models = one rotational spring at each end + elastic
element
Advantages: relatively simple, good for interface effects (e.g. bar pullout)
Disadvantages: forcedeformation of rotational spring depends on geometry and
moment distribution; relation to strains requires plastic hinge length; interaction
of axial force, moment good for metallic elements; more complex interaction
questionable; numerical robustness difficult
Distributed inelasticity models (FE model) = consistent integration of section
response at specific control or monitoring points
Advantages: versatile and consistent; material response can be incorporated in
section response; interaction of axial force and moment (and shear and torsion)
can be rationally developed, thus numerical robustness is possible
Disadvantages: can be expensive (not clear), require good understanding of
integration to determine validity of strains and local response
Structural BeamColumn Models
N
M
Distributed inelasticity models
2 monitoring points usually at element ends = inelastic zone model

Good for columns and girders with low gravity loads
Consistent location of integration point?
Value of fixed length of inelastic zone?
Good for softening response (Fenves/Scott, ASCE 2006)
Variable inelastic zone element (CLLee/FCF, ASCE 2009); good for hardening
response
>2 monitoring points
 Good for girders with significant gravity loads
 45 integration points are advisable (good plastic hinge length value with
corresponding integration weights)
 One element per girder > avoid very high local deformation values
BeamColumn Models: Concentrated Inelasticity
Concentrated plasticity models =
one or more rotational springs at each end +
elastic element
N
M
Advantages:
relatively simple, good(?) for interface effects
(e.g. shear sliding, rotation due to bar pullout)
Disadvantages:
properties of rotational spring depend on geometry
and moment distribution; relation to strains
requires plastic hinge length;
interaction of axial force, moment and shear ????;
generality??? numerical robustness???
BeamColumn Models: Distributed Inelasticity
x
Distributed inelasticity models (1d FE model) =
consistent integration of section response at specific
control or monitoring points
Advantages:
versatile and consistent;
section response from integration of material response
thus NMyMz interaction (Bernoulli)
(shear and torsion?? Timoshenko, )
thus numerical robustness is possible
Disadvantages:
can be expensive (what is the price $$$$) with wasted
sections for localized inelasticity
inaccuracy of local response (localization)
thus better understanding of theory for interpretation of
local response and damage is necessary
y
z
Economic Distributed(?) inelasticity models for Columns
x
2 monitoring points at element ends =
inelastic zone model

y
z
Good for columns and girders with low gravity loads
NMyMz interaction straightforward
shear and torsion ???
Consistent location of integration point?
Value of fixed length of inelastic zone?
Good for softening response
(Fenves/Scott, ASCE 2006)
 Hardening response Spreading inelastic zone
element SIZE (CL Lee/FCF, ASCE 2009 to appear)
without NM interaction; is generalization possible??
Good Distributed inelasticity models for Girders
For girders with significant gravity loads
 45 integration points are advisable (good plastic hinge length value with
corresponding integration weights)
 One element per girder > avoid very high local deformation values
Section Response for Distributed Inelasticity Models
Section resultant formulation based on plasticity theory, damage, etc, etc
Relatively economical, effects can be lumped in a composite section response
Generalization and extension to other than the calibrated cases may not be
straightforward; hardening is very difficult to incorporate let alone softening
Section geometry must always be accounted for (are limit capacities sufficient?)
Integration of 1d, 1 d, 2d, and 3d material response
For midpoint integration the name fiber model is used; but other integration
methods are possible
For many fibers it can be expensive; how many fibers should be used?
Section Response for Distributed Inelasticity Models
Section resultant formulation based on
plasticity theory, damage, etc, etc
x 2 + 3.5 x 2 y 2 + 1.2 y 2 = 1
1
numerical solution
analytical solution
polynomial approximation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1
0.5
0.5
Relatively economical, effects can be
lumped in a composite section
response
Generalization and extension to other
than the calibrated cases may not be
straightforward; hardening is difficult to
incorporate, let alone softening
Section geometry must always be
accounted for (are limit capacities
sufficient?)
Hardening ???
RC section, softening ???
Section Response for Distributed Inelasticity Models
Integration of 1d, 1 d, 2d, and 3d
material response
a)
For midpoint integration the name
fiber model is used; are other
integration methods better??
how many fibers should be used and
for what purpose?
b)
MID25
z
Two key ideas for beamcolumn elements
How to incorporate nonlinear geometry under large displacements?
Formulate the element in the basic reference system without rigid body modes
Use corotational formulation to transform basic variables to global system
Keep element forcedeformation relation in basic system simple: use linear
geometry under small deformations
Use one element per structural member (see point below)
If secondorder effects within structural member are significant, break structural
member into 2 elements by inserting middle node
How to formulate a robust frame element?
Use HuWashizu functional with independent interpolation of forces (exact under
certain conditions), displacements and section deformations
(Taylor/Filippou/Saritas Comp Mech, 2003)
No need for mesh refinement; keep integration points to 4, or 2 with variable
integration weight (5 respectively 3 points for girders under large element loads)
Advantages of Mixed Formulation in Corotational Framework
Nonlinear geometry is uncoupled from basic element response; thus,
geometric transformation classes (e.g. large displacements, P, linear) can
be implemented once for all user frame elements (OpenSees, FEDEASLab)
Force interpolation functions are exact under certain conditions
Element deformations arise in weak form and represent well the inelastic
strain distribution (see next point)
Without need for mesh and integration point refinement there is no danger
of localization; local strains are relatively accurate as long as the plastic
hinge length is accurate ( = integration weight of end points) fiber hinge is
a good choice for columns under plastic or softening response
The effect of distributed element loads can be accounted for exactly with the
force interpolation functions
Corotational formulation for large displacement geometry
u6
u y = u 5 u 2
v
= a gu
u
u x = u 4 u1
u5
Ln
p = aTgu q
u3
k e = k g + a Tgu k t a gu
u4
Y
L
y
u2
i
v1 = Ln L
v 2 = u3
v3 = u6
u1
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Nonlinear geometry with large displacements
Frame by Lee et al. (1968)
Lee`s Frame
P,w
120 cm
24 cm
96 cm
2 cm
120
3 cm
100
E = 70608 MPa
80
E H = 01
. E
y = 1020 MPa
y
60
120 cm
40
20
0
20
40
40
20
20
40
60
x
80
100
120
140
160
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Lee Frame (Lee et al. 1968)
Lee`s F ram e
20
linear elas tic
A pplied Load P (k N)
15
elas toplas tic
with k inem atic
hardening
10
5
propos ed flex . form ul.  3 elm ts
C ic hon (1983)  10 elm ts
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
D is plac em ent v (c m )
70
80
90
100
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Forcedisplacement of eccentric column (basic element)
P
2.5
x 10
Linear element
2
Axial Force
1.5
P
0.5
2 E lem ents
4 E lem ents
8 E lem ents
16 E lem ents
32 E lem ents
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
E nd Rotation
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
10
Brace buckling (Black and Popov 1980)
B u c k lin g B ra c e w it h P 
150
100
Vertical Force
50
5 0
1 0 0
2 . 5
2
1 . 5
1
0 . 5
0
V e rt ic a l D is p la c e m e n t
0.5
1.5
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Brace buckling (Black and Popov 1980)
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
11
P. Uriz and S. Mahin
UC Berkeley
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Lateral Buckling: CST and Quad element in 3d space
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
12
General multistep analysis
Analysis with scripts
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
NewtonRaphson algorithm and its variants
The NewtonRaphson algorithm requires that a new tangent stiness matrix
be assembled at every iteration of every load step. This means that the linear
system of equations for the displacement correction needs to be solved from
scratch at every iteration of every load step. For very large structural models
this is a very expensive proposition.
In the modied NewtonRaphson method the tangent matrix is not updated
at every iteration, but only once at the beginning of each load step. In the
initial stiness method, the initial stiness is used throughout the incremental analysis. Alternative strategies that update the stiness matrix every so
often are also possible. If the stiness matrix is not updated, the last decomposition of the stiness matrix is used for the solution of the linearized
equilibrium equations and only the load changes at each iteration.
Finally, quasiNewton methods do not use the tangent stiness matrix of
the structure but obtain secant stiness approximations of the inverse of
the stiness matrix from the displacement vectors of previous iterations.
Among the best known quasiNewton methods is the BFGS method, which
was originally developed for nonlinear optimization problems. For a brief
description of the method consult Bathes 1982 book pp. 759761.
c
Filip
C. Filippou  UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 14
General multistep analysis
Analysis with scripts
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
Response of 2dof truss under 2 load increments with = 0.5
1
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
Load factor
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
NR steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Figure: NewtonRaphson method
c
Filip
C. Filippou  UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 15
General multistep analysis
Analysis with scripts
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
Response of 2dof truss under 2 load increments with = 0.5
1
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Load factor
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S t i f U p d t = no ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
modified NR steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Figure: Modied NewtonRaphson method
c
Filip
C. Filippou  UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 16
General multistep analysis
Analysis with scripts
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
Response of 2dof truss under 2 load increments with = 0.5
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
StifUpdt = yes ;
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
S SimpIncrement
S t i f U p d t = no ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
Load factor
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
modified NR steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Figure: Initial stiness method
c
Filip
C. Filippou  UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 17
General multistep analysis
Analysis with scripts
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
Response of 2dof truss under 2 load increments with = 0.5
1
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
8
0.7
Load factor
no step = 2;
Dlam0
= 0.5;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S Update State
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Figure: Incrementation without correction
c
Filip
C. Filippou  UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 18
General multistep analysis
Analysis with scripts
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
Response of 2dof truss under 5 load increments with = 0.2
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
Load factor
0.7
no step = 5;
Dlam0
= 0.2;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S Update State
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Figure: Incrementation without correction
c
Filip
C. Filippou  UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 19
General multistep analysis
Analysis with scripts
Script les
NR and its Variants
Results
Response of 2dof truss under 10 load increments with = 0.1
1
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
0.9
0.8
8
0.7
Load factor
no step = 10;
Dlam0
= 0.1;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S SimpInitialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIncrement
S Update State
end
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
numerically exact solution
steps
final result for algorithm
0.1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Vertical translation (downward)
0.25
0.3
Figure: Incrementation without correction
c
Filip
C. Filippou  UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 20
LF control in incrementation
Stiness parameter
Algorithm with LF Control
LF control in iteration
Examples
Response of 2dof truss under 22 load increments with = 0.1
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
Load factor
0.8
no step = 23;
Dlam0
= 0.10;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State ;
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S Initialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
LoadCtrl = yes ;
S Increment
StifUpdt = yes ;
S SimpIterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Vertical displacement (downward)
0.4
0.45
Figure: Load factor control during incrementation; only
21 steps are able to complete; the last step ipops
c
Filip
C. Filippou  UC Berkeley
Lecture 12 / page 11
LF control in incrementation
Stiness parameter
Algorithm with LF Control
LF control in iteration
Examples
Response of 2dof truss under 120 load increments with = 0.1
1.5
8
EA=25000
k=5,000
b
1
Load factor
0.5
no step = 120;
Dlam0
= 0.10;
tol
= 1 . e 16;
maxiter = 10;
S Initialize State ;
Pf = z e r o s ( nf , 1 ) ;
S Initialize
f o r k =1: n o s t e p
StifUpdt = yes ;
LoadCtrl = yes ;
S Increment
StifUpdt = yes ;
LoadCtrl = yes ;
S Iterate
i f ( ConvFlag )
S Update State
end
end
0.5
1
1.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Vertical displacement (downward)
2.5
Figure: Response of 2dof truss with load factor control
c
Filip
C. Filippou  UC Berkeley
Lecture 12 / page 18
Correlation studies of analysis with experiment: important but
Many tests have been conducted and more are under way
Before understanding the behavior of assemblies one should understand the
behavior of the constituent parts; not always possible or available
Reduced scale models require attention to scaling laws (e.g. weld fractures,
bondslip)
Older tests are not complete either for lack of enough channels of
measurement or for lack of reporting (lost data); it is hard to obtain funding to
repeat old tests
Tests may have experimental errors (these are not reported always)
Success or failure can be decided by looking at all experimental data, not a
suitable subset of them
We can learn from failure as much as we learn from success, even though this
is not accepted practice in research publications; better paradigm is necessary
A simple start
RC columns with biaxial bending and variable axial force
13
LowMoehle Specimen 5: LoadDisplacement Response in y
40
py
30
Px =44.48 kN
51.44 cm
pz
Load y (kN)
20
10
0
10
20
experiment
30
40
analysis
3
2
1
0
1
Tip Displacement y (cm)
LowMoehle Specimen 5: LoadDisplacement Response in z
40
py
30
Px =44.48 kN
Load z (kN)
20
51.44 cm
pz
10
0
10
20
experiment
30
40
analysis
3
2
1
0
1
Tip Displacement z (cm)
14
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
Moment Mz (kNcm)
Moment Mz (kNcm)
LowMoehle Specimen 5: Reinforcing Steel Strain History
500
0
y
500
1000
500
0
500
1000
1500
1500
2000
40
30
20
10
10
20
30
2000
80
40
60
40
20
20
40
60
80
60
80
Fiber Strain (milcm/cm)
Steel Strain (milcm/cm)
Effect of reinforcing bar pullout from base
2000
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
Moment Mz (kNcm)
Moment Mz (kNcm)
LowMoehle Specimen 5: Reinforcing Steel Strain History
500
0
y
500
1000
500
0
y
500
1000
1500
1500
2000
40
30
20
10
10
Steel Strain (milcm/cm)
20
30
40
2000
80
60
40
20
20
40
Fiber Strain (milcm/cm)
15
Eccentrically braced steel frames
Shear Link
Eccentrically Braced Frame
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Shear Link Experiment (Hjelmstad/Popov 1983)
Equal moments at member ends
W18 40
d = 17.88 in
t f = 0.521 in
b f = 5.985 in
L=28 in
t w = 0.314 in
Imposed vertical displacement at the right end of the element.
Loading History
Displacement, in
2
4
0
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
4
6
Pseudo time
10
16
Shear Link Experiment (Hjelmstad/Popov 1983)
250
200
150
Shear Force (kips)
100
50
0
50
100
150
Experiment
Analysis
200
250
4
3
2
1
Imposed Displacement (in)
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Concrete shear model
Monitoring section
Av f v
Monitoring point
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
17
Vecchio/Shim (2004) Beams A1 and A2 (shearcompresion)
P
b=307mm
M10
M10
D4 ties
D5 ties
D5 ties
L=3660 mm (Beam A1)
L=4570 mm (Beam A2)
L=6400 mm (Beam A3)
M25
M30 M25
Beam A1
Beam A2
M30
M25
M30
Beam A3
600
Experiment
2DFEM Model
Proposed Model
A1
500
500
Point45
400
Load (kN)
h=561mm
64mm
each
64mm
each
600
b=307mm
b=307mm
M10
A2
400
Point113
Point25
300
Experiment
2DFEM Model
Proposed Model
300
200
200
Point10
100
100
0
0
10
15
20
Midspan Deflection (mm)
25
30
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Midspan deflection (mm)
35
40
45
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Vecchio/Shim (2004) Beam A1 (shearcompresion failure)
600
Experiment
2DFEM Model
Proposed Model
500
Point 10
Point45
Load (kN)
400
Point113
Point 25
Point25
300
200
Point10
100
0
0
Point 45
10
15
20
Midspan Deflection (mm)
25
30
Point 113
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
18
Vecchio/Shim (2004) Beam A3 (compression failure)
600
Experiment
2DFEM Model
Proposed Model
500
Point40
Load (kN)
400
300
One element per half span with 5
Lobatto integration points is used
The crosssection is divided into 10
midpoint layers
Basic concrete material parameters are
taken from VecchioShim
Point65
Point25
200
Point 10
100
0
0
Point10
Point 25
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Midspan deflection (mm)
Point 40
Point 65
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
ThomsenWallace (2004) Slender Shear Walls
48"
200
150
Shear Force (kN)
100
50
A
144"
0
50
100
150
200
100
50
0
50
50
Top Displacement (mm)
(mm)
100
100
Section AA
8 #3 bars
#2 bars @7.5"
4"
48"
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
(Concrete cover 0.75")
19
LefasKotsovosAmbraseys (1990) Shear Walls
Shear walls SW21 and SW22 have aspect ratio L/h=2.0
d
180
160
140
Loading Direction
Shear Force,kN
120
100
80
60
40
Experiment =0
Analysis =0
Experiment =0.1
Analysis =0.1
20
0
0
10
15
Top Displacement,mm
20
25
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
Evolution of shear wall cracking Tensile damage
c) Point 97
b) Point 35
Point35
Point40
Point60
Point97
0.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
PEER 2004 Annual Meeting
0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
1.2
1
0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
Column axis
a) Point 30
Point30
0.9
0.2 0 0.2
Column depth
20
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
FCF, University of California, Berkeley
Full scale 7 story wall building (Panagiotou, Restrepo, Conte, UCSD)
Height 20 m
Flange Wall
Weight 226 tons
Web Wall
Precast
Column
Gravity Column
Table motion direction
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
FCF, University of California, Berkeley
Confined and unconfined zones in the web wall
21
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
FCF, University of California, Berkeley
Interstory drift and displacement envelopes
Excellent agreement in terms of interstory drift and displacement
Increasing damage due to increasing intensity motions is visible
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
FCF, University of California, Berkeley
Residual displacement and floor acceleration envelopes
Good agreement in terms of residual displacement
Satisfactory results in terms of floor acceleration
22
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
FCF, University of California, Berkeley
Story shear and overturning moment envelopes
Good agreement also in terms of internal forces
Maximum discrepancy during last motion at shear wall base
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
FCF, University of California, Berkeley
Experimental and analytical frequency spectrum
f1 = 1.83 Hz (0.55 s)
Beginning of EQ1
f1 = 0.67 Hz (1.43 s)
End of EQ4
Significant lengthening of fundamental period of specimen (> than 2.5 x)
Damage evolution tracked with remarkable accuracy
23
Analytical Model of
Reinforced Concrete Walls
Paolo Martinelii, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
FCF, University of California, Berkeley
Top displacement time history
Conclusions
Nonlinear Analysis is gradually going to become a designers tool for the
evaluation of existing structures and the design of new important structures
It can offer significant insights into the global, but particularly into the local
response of structures and, thus serve for the identification of local failure
mechanisms
The current state of the art permits the simulation of the hysteretic behavior
of structural elements with limited success; deeper understanding of
material behavior under cyclic loading is, however, indispensable in order to
arrive at failure mode prediction
Thorough correlations between numerical models and specimens of
increasing complexity are indispensable; limited progress has been made to
date, particularly regarding 3d response
24
Continuing Challenges
Effect for shear, torsion and interaction with axial force and bending
moment (3d and not just 2d analysis for shear)
Effect of bondslip, pullout of reinforcing steel
3d beamcolumn joint model that is robust and efficient
3d constitutive model for concrete under large inelastic strains (damage,
dilatation, )
Buckling of reinforcing steel (global and not local)
Low cycle fatigue of structural steel; fracture
Simulation of structural subassemblies and fullscale structures
Many more: partitions, slabwallcolumn interactions, cladding, infills
Future outlook
Much work needs to be done before nonlinear analysis can have
widespread use, because of the complexity of nonlinear solution algorithms
and the lack of training of modern engineers; thus researchers and
educators need to redouble their efforts in clarifying the concepts
I hope that with the contributions of all those present in an open forum
(open platform) we will be able to experience significant progress in the
nonlinear simulation of concrete structures in the future
25