EFFECTS OF DAMPING MODELLING ON RESULTS OF

TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS OF RC BRIDGES

NIGEL PRIESTLEY

Centre of Research and Graduate Studies in Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology (Rose School),
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS) Pavia, Italy

MICHELE CALVI

Department of Structural Mechanics, Univerita degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia Italy

LORENZA PETRINI

Department of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Italy

CLAUDIO MAGGI

Department of Structural Mechanics, Universita degli Studi di Pavia Italy

Abstract:

The choice between initial-stiffness and tangent-stiffness elastic damping for

modelling dynamic response of reinforced concrete bridge structures is
discussed. It is argued that initial-stiffness elastic damping, which has been
extensively used in most previous analyses, is inappropriate, and results in
large, spurious damping forces in the inelastic range of response. When
tangent-stiffness elastic damping is used, damping forces are reduced, and as
a consequence displacements are increased to the extent that the equaldisplacement approximation is invalid for most hysteresis rules. Results of a
simple static/dynamic experiment to investigate which damping model is
most appropriate conclusively demonstrate that initial-stiffness elastic
damping is non-conservative

Key words: damping, inelastic response, time-history analysis, dynamic test, bridge pier

Nigel Priestley, Michele Calvi, Lorenza Petrini, Claudio Maggi

1. INTRODUCTION
It is common to specify a level of elastic damping in inelastic time-history analysis
(ITHA) to represent damping in the initial stages of response, before hysteretic damping
is activated. This is normally specified as a percentage, typically 5%, of critical damping.
There are a number of ways this damping could be defined, but the principal difference is
whether the damping force is related to the initial or tangent stiffness.
Typically, research papers reporting results on single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
ITHA state that 5% elastic damping was used, without clarifying whether this has been
related to the initial or tangent stiffness. With multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
analyses, the situation is often further confused by the adoption of Rayleigh damping,
which is a combination of mass-proportional and stiffness-proportional damping. It is
our understanding that many analysts consider the choice of the initial elastic damping
model to be rather insignificant for either SDOF or MDOF inelastic analyses, as the
effects are expected to be masked by the much greater energy dissipation associated with
hysteretic response. This is despite evidence by others (e.g. Otani (1981)) that the choice
of initial damping model between a constant damping matrix and tangent-stiffness
proportional damping matrix could be significant, particularly for short-period structures.
With initial stiffness elastic damping, the damping coefficient is constant throughout the
analysis, even in the inelastic range of response, and is based on the initial elastic stiffness.
With tangent-stiffness damping the damping coefficient is proportional to the
instantaneous value of the stiffness and it is updated whenever the stiffness changes.
With the case of elasto-plastic response, the tangent-stiffness damping force will be zero
while the structure deforms along a yield plateau.
There are three main reasons for incorporating elastic damping in ITHA:

The assumption of linear elastic response at force-levels less than yield: Many
hysteretic rules make this assumption, and therefore do not represent the
nonlinearity, and hence hysteretic damping within the elastic range for concrete
and masonry structures, unless additional elastic damping is provided.
Foundation damping: Soil flexibility, nonlinearity and radiation damping are not
normally incorporated in structural time-history analyses, and may provide
additional damping to the structural response.
Non-structural damping: Hysteretic response of non-structural elements, and
relative movement between structural and non-structural elements may result in
an effective additional damping force.

Discussing these reasons in turn, it is noted that hysteretic rules are generally calibrated to
experimental structural data in the inelastic phase of response. Therefore additional

1st US-Italy Seismic Bridge Workshop

elastic damping should not be used in the post-yield state to represent structural response
except when the structure is unloading and reloading elastically. If the hysteretic rule
models the elastic range nonlinearly (as is the case for fibre-element modelling) then no
additional damping should be used in ITHA for structural representation. It is thus clear
that the elastic damping of hysteretic models which have a linear representation of the
elastic range, and which hence do not dissipate energy by hysteretic action at low force
levels would be best modelled with tangent-stiffness proportional damping, since the
elastic damping force will greatly reduce when the stiffness drops to the post-yield level.
It should, however, be noted that when the post-yield stiffness is significant, the elastic
damping will still be overestimated. This is particularly important for hysteretic rules such
as the modified Takeda degrading stiffness rule which has comparatively high stiffness in
post-yield cycles.
If the structure deforms with perfect plasticity, then foundation forces will remain
constant in the structural post-yield stage, and foundation damping will cease. It is thus
clear that the effects of foundation damping in SDOF analysis are best represented by
tangent stiffness related to the structural response, unless the foundation response is
separately modelled by springs and dashpots.
It is shown elsewhere (Priestley et al (2007)) that non-structural damping in modern
buildings is likely to contribute no more than 1% effective damping in the inelastic range
of response. With bridges it is hard to see where non-structural damping could originate.
It is instructive in determining the influence of alternative elastic damping models to
consider the steady-state, harmonic response of an inelastic SDOF oscillator subjected to
constant sinusoidal excitation. This enables direct comparison between hysteretic and
elastic damping energy, and also between elastic damping energy using a constant
damping coefficient and tangent-stiffness proportional damping models. To this end,
Fig.1 shows response of a simple SDOF oscillator with initial period of 0.5 sec and a
thin modified Takeda hysteresis rule subjected to 10 seconds of a 1.0 Hz forcing
function. The steady-state response of the pier corresponded to a displacement ductility
of about 7.7 at the upper limit of reasonable ductile response.
Results for the stabilised loops, ignoring the transitory first three seconds of response
are plotted in Fig.1(a) (initial-stiffness proportional damping) and Fig.1(b) (tangentstiffness proportional damping). In each case the hysteretic response associated with
nonlinear structural response is plotted on the left, and the elastic damping forcedisplacement response is plotted to the right. The areas inside the loops indicate the
relative energy absorption. For the case with initial-stiffness proportional damping, the
energy absorbed by elastic damping is approximately 83% of the structural hysteretic
energy dissipation, despite the high ductility level. This might be surprising when it is
considered that the elastic damping corresponds to 5% of critical damping, while the

Nigel Priestley, Michele Calvi, Lorenza Petrini, Claudio Maggi

2000

2000

1000

1000

Damping Force (kN)

Stiffness Force (kN)

hysteretic damping is equivalent to about 20% of critical damping. This apparent

anomaly is due to the different reference stiffness used. The elastic damping is related to
the initial stiffness, whereas the hysteretic damping is related to the secant stiffness to
maximum response.

-1000

-2000

-1000

-2000
-0.1

Displacement (m)

0.1

-0.1

Displacement (m)

0.1

2000

2000

1000

1000

Damping Force (kN)

Stiffness Force (kN)

(a) Analysis with Initial Stiffness Damping

-1000

-2000

-1000

-2000
-0.1

Displacement (m)

0.1

-0.1

Displacement (m)

0.1

(b) Analysis with Tangent Stiffness Damping

Fig.1 Steady-state Inelastic response of an SDOF oscillator with Thin Modified Takeda hysteresis

When the elastic damping is tangent-stiffness proportional, as we believe to be most

appropriate for structural response, the elastic damping energy is greatly reduced, as can

1st US-Italy Seismic Bridge Workshop

be seen by comparing the upper and lower right-hand plots of Fig. 1. In the lower plot,
the reduction in damping force corresponding to the stiffness change is clearly visible. In
this case, the area of the elastic damping loop is only about 15% of the structural
hysteretic energy dissipation.
Analyses of SDOF systems subjected to real earthquake records (Priestley and Grant
(2005)) show that the significance of the elastic damping model is not just limited to
steady-state response. Figure 2 shows a typical comparison of the displacement response
for SDOF oscillators with initial stiffness and tangent stiffness elastic damping. In this
example the El Centro 1940 NS record (amplitude scaled by 1.5) has been used, the initial
period was 0.5 seconds, a Takeda hysteretic rule with second slope stiffness of 5% was
adopted, and the force-reduction factor was approximately 4. The peak displacement for
the tangent- stiffness elastic damping case is 44% larger than for the initial-stiffness
damping case, indicating a very significant influence.
0.15
Tangent Stiffness

Displacement (m)

0.1

Initial Stiffness

0.05

-0.05

-0.1
0

8
12
Time (seconds)

16

20

Fig 2 Response of an SDOF Oscillator to 1.5xEl Centro 1940,NS (T=0.5 sec)

A selection of results from a series of analyses of oscillators with different initial periods
between 0.25 and 2.0 seconds subjected to a suite of ATC32 (1996) specrrum compatible
accelerograms is shown in Fig.3, which presents the ratio of peak inelastic displacement
response to peak elastic displacement response for three different hysteresis rules, and
three different force-reduction factors, applied to the average elastic peak response force.

Nigel Priestley, Michele Calvi, Lorenza Petrini, Claudio Maggi

Displacement Ratio (/elastic)

2.4

2.4

2.4

R=2

1.6

1.6

TS

1.2

1.2
IS

0.8

0.4

1.6

R=4

TS

0.8

1.2

1.6

R=6

IS

1.2

IS

0.8

0.8

Period (seconds)

TS

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Period (seconds)

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Period (seconds)

Displacement Ratio (/elastic)

(a) Takeda (concrete) hysteresis

2.4

2.4

2.4

R=2

1.6
TS

1.2
0.8

1.6

IS

1.2

IS

R=4

TS

1.6

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Period (seconds)

R=6

IS

1.2

0.8

TS

0.8

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Period (seconds)

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Period (seconds)

Displacement Ratio (/elastic)

(b) Bilinear hysteresis

2.4

2.4

R=2

1.6

2.4

R=4

1.6

TS

IS

0.4

0.8

TS

1.6
IS

IS

1.2
0.8

TS

1.2

1.6

Period (seconds)

1.2

1.2

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Period (seconds)

(c)Flag Hysteresis

0.4

0.8

R=6

1.2

1.6

Period (seconds)

Fig.3 Response of SDOF Oscillators to ATC32 Spectrum-Compatible Accelerograms

1st US-Italy Seismic Bridge Workshop

From examination of Figure 3 it will be noted that there is a significant difference

between the response of the initial-stiffness and tangent-stiffness (identified as IS and TS
respectively) models, that this difference is rather independent of initial period, for
T>0.5 seconds, that the difference increases with force-reduction factor, and is
dependent on the hysteretic rule assumed. It will also be noted that though the equal
displacement approximation (represented by a displacement ratio of 1.0 in Figure 3) is
reasonable for initial stiffness damping and initial periods greater than T = 1.0 seconds, it
is significantly non-conservative for tangent-stiffness elastic damping.
2. TESTS ON BRIDGE PIERS
In order to investigate the validity of the arguments supporting tangent-stiffness initial
damping, made above, a simple experimental program was undertaken at the EUCentre,
Pavia. Two identical SDOF hollow-section cantilever bridge piers were constructed,
based on a model/prototype scale of 1:4. Details of reinforcement and general
dimensions are shown in Fig.4.
186 cm

Deck mass

fc = 39MPa
fy = 514 MPa
Mass = 7.8 tonnes

88 cm

Column

Spiral 6/6 cm

28 cm

45 cm

200 cm
288 cm

1810
Spiral 6/3 cm

Pier cross-section

88 cm

50 cm

156 cm

Spiral 6

Footing

Figure 4 Dimensions of Piers for Static and Dynamic Tests

The first test was carried out under static cyclic displacement-controlled excitation at
levels of displacement ductility of = 1, 2, 4 and 6, with three cycles at each ductility
level, followed by an elastic cycle to enable stiffness degradation to be determined.

Nigel Priestley, Michele Calvi, Lorenza Petrini, Claudio Maggi

Predicted response was obtained using SeismoStruct (SeismoSoft (2007)), a fibre-based

multi-purpose structural analysis package. The experimental response was also used to
calibrate the parameters of a modified Takeda hysteresis rule. Experimental forcedisplacement hysteresis response is compared with predictions by SeismoStruct and the
Takeda modelling in Figs 5 and 6 respectively.
It will be noted that there is a small, but significant apparent strength eccentricity in the
experimental results, with higher values obtained in the positive force-displacement
quadrant than in the negative quadrant. This is partially a consequence of the expected
higher flexural strength in the initial loading direction, but is also probably due in part to
the reinforcement cage being slightly eccentric in the column diameter.
100
80
60

Force [kN]

40
20
0
-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

-20
-40
-60
-80

SeismoStruct simulation
Experimental test

-100

Displacement [m]

Figure 5 SeismoStruct Simulation of Static Test

It will also be noted that the SeismoStruct simulation slightly underestimates the flexural
strength, and results in hysteresis loops that absorb more energy than the experimental
loops. This is a consequence of the difficulty in modelling shear deformation in fibreelement based analyses. Strength degradation on cycling to a specified ductility level is
also slightly under-predicted by the SeismoStruct modelling, but overall, the simulation is
excellent.
The Takeda hysteresis modelling was, as noted above, adjusted to provide the best fit to
the experimental results. Strength degradation was not included in the modelling, but

1st US-Italy Seismic Bridge Workshop

otherwise the agreement with experimental results is excellent.

100
80
60

Force [kN]

40
20
0
-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

-20
-40
-60
-80

Experimental test
Ruaumoko simulation

-100

Displacement [m]

Figure 6 Takeda Hysteresis Simulation of Static Test

The second unit was tested on a shake table using an accelerograms based on the 1984
Morgan Hill record. This record was chosen based on preliminary analyses with a number
of accelerograms where the aim was to provide the largest difference between predicted
peak displacement using initial-stiffness and tangent-stiffness elastic damping models.
The record was scaled in the time-domain as a consequence of the model scale, and also
scaled in amplitude to produce a predicted peak displacement corresponding to
displacement ductility demand of = 6, based on the tangent-stiffness prediction. This
represented the maximum stable displacement response of the static model (see Figs 5
and 6) at larger displacements strength degradation was rapid. It should be noted that
the peak predicted displacement response using initial-stiffness damping and the Takeda
simulation was of the order of = 3. The difference was larger when damping was added
to the SeismoStruct simulation, with initial-stiffness damping predicting average peak
displacements (average of positive and negative peaks) only 39% of the tangent stiffness
predictions. It was thus felt that the dynamic test could be confidently expected to
establish which damping model was more appropriate for this test.
The recorded table excitation was very close to the modified Morgan Hill record, though
peak acceleration amplitudes were about 10% higher than expected. As a consequence,
predictions from the SeismoStruct and Takeda simulations were re-run using the

Nigel Priestley, Michele Calvi, Lorenza Petrini, Claudio Maggi

10

recorded table accelerations. Comparisons of recorded experimental displacement

response and predictions from the two analysis methods for the first 12 seconds of
response are included in Fig. 7.
0.15

Displacement (m)

0.1
5% T.S. Damping
0.05
5% I.S. damping
0
-0.05
-0.1

Experiment

-0.15
0

Displacement (m)

0.15

6
8
Time (sec)
(a) SeismoStruct Simulation

10

0.1

5% T.S.damping

0.05

5% I.S. Damping

12

0
-0.05
-0.1

Experiment

-0.15
0

6
Time (sec)
(b) Takeda Simulation

10

12

Figure 7 Comparison of Experiment and Predicted Displacement Time-Histories for Dynamic Test

Considering first the experimental response, it is seen that the peak displacement rises by
T = 3.5 sec. in three cycles to about 0.1m, the value corresponding to = 6 from the

1st US-Italy Seismic Bridge Workshop

11

static test, and hence the largest stable static response level. Following this the
experimental response indicates a significant residual displacement (about 0.05m) with
another large displacement pulse between T = 10 and 10.5 seconds. The negative
displacement in this pulse was 0.15m, corresponding to a displacement ductility factor of
= 9, and was accompanied by severe strength degradation. This was eventually
accompanied by fracture of all flexural reinforcement at the column base, and
catastrophic failure of the column.
The SeismoStruct prediction of response (Fig.7a) based on a tangent-stiffness elastic
damping model provides a good representation of the experimental response, particularly
up to T = 5.5 seconds. After this the residual displacement is slightly underestimated.
Beyond T = 10 seconds, the strength degradation resulting from fracture of the flexural
reinforcement was not captured in the SeismoStruct simulation, and displacements were
underestimated. Considering peak displacements up to T = 10.2 seconds, the
SeismoStruct peaks were 76% and 93% of the experimental peak positive and negative
displacements respectively. On the other hand, displacements predicted by the initialstiffness elastic damping simulation severly underestimated the peak experimental
displacements, being 27.5% and 36% of the peak positive and negative displacements.
The Takeda line-element simulations were carried out using Ruaumoko (Carr, (2005)). It
will be seen from Fig.7b that the tangent-stiffness simulation provided extremely close
estimates of the experimental response in the initial cycles up to the peak static
displacement capacity of 0.1m, which occurred at about T = 3.5 seconds, while the initialstiffness simulation underestimated the displacements by about 30% on average, except
in the initial elastic cycles (<1). Beyond T = 3.5 seconds the residual displacement was
underestimated by both initial-stiffness and tangent-stiffness models, but the peak
displacement at T = 10.2 seconds was again captured well by the tangent-stiffness model.
Considering peak displacements up to T = 10.2 seconds, the tangent-stiffness model
peaks were 104% and 102% of the experimental positive and negative displacement
peaks, while the initial-stiffness values were 55% and 67% of experimental peaks
respectively.
3. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The different analytical results provide compelling support for the use of tangentstiffness, rather than initial-stiffness elastic damping. It should be noted, however, that
for the fibre-element based SeismoStruct simulation, it can be argued that no elastic
damping should be included, as the nonlinearity in the elastic range of response should
be directly modelled. A further analysis was thus carried out with SeismoStruct, with no
added elastic damping. The results, which are not included in Fig.7a), were very similar,
though slightly larger, than those obtained with tangent-stiffness damping. Peak

12

Nigel Priestley, Michele Calvi, Lorenza Petrini, Claudio Maggi

displacements were increased to 91% and 98% of the experimental peak positive and
negative displacements.
For comparison, the Takeda analysis was also rerun for zero elastic damping.
Displacement peaks increased to 118% and 106% of experimental peaks.
It will be noted that the predictions for 5% initial-stiffness damping from SeismoStruct
and Ruaumoko differ significantly (compare Figs 7a and 7b). This is because the
SeismoStruct simulation used the initial un-cracked section stiffness, whereas the
Ruaumoko simulation was based on effective stiffness to first yield. A stiffness difference
by a factor of approximately 2.5 thus resulted between the two simulations, resulting in a
much higher elastic damping force for the SeismoStruct analyses. The question could
thus be asked to advocates of initial-stiffness damping: what value of initial stiffness
should be used.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Common sense considerations of structural behaviour indicate that initial-stiffness based
elastic damping is inappropriate for dynamic analysis, resulting in elastic damping forces
that are unrealistically high. Tangent-stiffness elastic damping appears to be more
appropriate, and results in increased displacements compared with initial-stiffness
predictions, particularly at high ductilities, and when hysteretic energy is low.
Results of a shake-table test of a simple bridge pier confirmed that tangent-stiffness
elastic damping gave the best prediction of displacement response when a simple Takeda
simulation, with linear response in the elastic range was used. When a more sophisticated
fibre-element simulation was used, the best simulation was obtained when no elastic
damping was used.
5. REFERENCES
Applied Technology Council (1996) ATC32: Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges
Provisional Recommendations Redwood City, CA, 256pp
Carr, A.J. (2005) Ruaumoko User Manual Dept of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Otani, S. (1981) Hysteretic Models of Reinforced Concrete for Earthquake Response Analysis
Journal of Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Vol.36(2) pp 407-441
Priestley, M.J.N. and Grant, D.N. (2005)Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis
Journal of Earthquake Engineering Vol.9 (SP2) pp 229-255
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007) Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures IUSS Press, Pavia, 721 pp.
SeismoSoft (2007) SeismoStruct A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis
of framed structures available from URL:http://www.seismosoft.com