You are on page 1of 30

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, fiber-hinge, inelastic beam-column finite elements)
2d and 3d finite elements (few robust constitutive models, few advanced
features when compared with expectations: e.g. bond-slip, buckling of
reinforcement, large discrete cracks, shear sliding, local buckling, fatigue,
tearing of steel, etc)

Beam-Column Models

Concentrated plasticity models = one rotational spring at each end + elastic


element
Advantages: relatively simple, good for interface effects (e.g. bar pull-out)
Disadvantages: force-deformation 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 Beam-Column 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
- 4-5 integration points are advisable (good plastic hinge length value with
corresponding integration weights)
- One element per girder -> avoid very high local deformation values

Beam-Column 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 pull-out)
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???

Beam-Column 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 N-My-Mz 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


N-My-Mz 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 N-M interaction; is generalization possible??

Good Distributed inelasticity models for Girders

For girders with significant gravity loads


- 4-5 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 beam-column 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 force-deformation relation in basic system simple: use linear
geometry under small deformations
Use one element per structural member (see point below)
If second-order effects within structural member are significant, break structural
member into 2 elements by inserting middle node

How to formulate a robust frame element?


Use Hu-Washizu 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 to-plas 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

Force-displacement 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 multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

Script les

NR and its Variants

Results

Newton-Raphson algorithm and its variants


The Newton-Raphson 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 Newton-Raphson 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, quasi-Newton 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 quasi-Newton 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. 759-761.
c
Filip
C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 14

General multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

Script les

NR and its Variants

Results

Response of 2-dof 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: Newton-Raphson method


c
Filip
C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 15

General multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

Script les

NR and its Variants

Results

Response of 2-dof 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 Newton-Raphson method


c
Filip
C. Filippou - UC Berkeley
Lecture 11 / page 16

General multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

Script les

NR and its Variants

Results

Response of 2-dof 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 multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

Script les

NR and its Variants

Results

Response of 2-dof 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 multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

Script les

NR and its Variants

Results

Response of 2-dof 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 multi-step analysis

Analysis with scripts

Script les

NR and its Variants

Results

Response of 2-dof 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 2-dof 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 ip-ops
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 2-dof 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 2-dof 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,
bond-slip)
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

Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Load-Displacement 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)

Low-Moehle Specimen 5: Load-Displacement 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 (kN-cm)

Moment Mz (kN-cm)

Low-Moehle 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 (mil-cm/cm)

Steel Strain (mil-cm/cm)

Effect of reinforcing bar pull-out from base

2000

2000

1500

1500

1000

1000

Moment Mz (kN-cm)

Moment Mz (kN-cm)

Low-Moehle 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 (mil-cm/cm)

20

30

40

-2000
-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

Fiber Strain (mil-cm/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 (shear-compresion)


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
2D-FEM 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
2D-FEM 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 (shear-compresion failure)


600
Experiment
2D-FEM 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
2D-FEM Model
Proposed Model

500
Point40

Load (kN)

400

300

One element per half span with 5


Lobatto integration points is used
The cross-section is divided into 10
midpoint layers
Basic concrete material parameters are
taken from Vecchio-Shim

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

Thomsen-Wallace (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 A-A

8- #3 bars

#2 bars @7.5"

4"
48"

PEER 2004 Annual Meeting

(Concrete cover 0.75")

19

Lefas-Kotsovos-Ambraseys (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 bond-slip, pull-out of reinforcing steel
3d beam-column 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 full-scale structures
Many more: partitions, slab-wall-column 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