TANGENT STIFFNESS

1. “Influence of Hysteretic Behavior on Equivalent Period and Damping of Structural

System. -(By Kwan and Billington)-

The tangent stiffness used anatically as based method in Deierlein and Hsieh (1990) and
Reinhorn et al. (1995). Presented in textbook by Chopra (1995) and Priestley et al. (1996)
as the “standard method to derive the equivalent linear system.

Tangent stiffness method:

The Teq is computed from tangent stiffness, which is a measure of an average stiffness of
the system.
The ξeq is derived from energy balance of actual hysteretic energy versus damping energy
of the equivalent linear system.
2. By Priestley et al.

Tangent Stiffness The damping coefficient (c = 2mωξ) is proportionately changed in

every changing of stiffness (associated with yield, unloading, reloading etc.).

With tangent stiffness damping, the damping coefficient is proportional to the

instantaneous value of the stiffness (rapid value of stiffness) and it is updated
whenever the stiffness changes.

The damping coefficient will equal to damping coefficient associated with the initial-
stiffness only in the initial elastic response (before yield state). After 1st yield, the
damping coefficient will be referenced to the post-yield, the unloading or the reloading
stiffness.
Elastic Damping Modelling:
It is common to specify a level of elastic damping in ITHA (inelastic time history analysis)
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.

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.

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 hvsteretic response.

This is despite evidence by others (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.
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, including all those shown in Fig.4.34 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 in a building 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
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.
Kwan’s paper derive both elastic damping and hysteretic damping with period
dependency and combine both in one equation. ξeq=ξc+ξhys.

Grant’s separated the elastic damping and give correction factor to the elastic damping.
ξeq=kξel+ξhys.
Grant et al. observed both initial stiffness and tangent stiffness method in deriving the
correction factor. Both of them have their correction factor for elastic damping.

Dwairi’sseparated the elastic damping for 5 % and adjusting the coefficient C.

Priestley’s used both Grant and Dwairi. (Period dependency also the correction factor)
Priestley’s used the tangent stiffness method (page 84 Priestley’s DBD book) instead of
the initial stiffness.

On page 83, in using tangent stiffness the value of elastic damping should be less than
the damping coeff.
EQUIVALENT PERIOD (EFFECTIVE PERIOD)  (Period dependency).

 By Kwan and Billington : The objective is to find a linear system with a certain period
(Teq) and a certain damping ratio (ξeq) such that its peak displacement response
matches that of the nonlinear system.
 By Iwan: To Optimize Teq and (ξeq) in order to minimize the error between the maximum
displacement from inelastic sys and the equivalent linear sys.
 By Grant : Period dependency, the result is conservative for short duration but more
realistic for long duration. (Hysteretic damping found in stable value for long duration at
T=4 s.
 By Dwairi : The period dependency was generally insignificant for period greater than 1 s
(except elastoplastic) conservative to ignore the period dependency in design. (It is
unusual for regular structures such as frame and wall building also bridges to have eff
period less than 1 s)

Period Independency:
 By Gulkan & Sozen: no relation was propose for Teq. Teq was estimated from tangent
stiffness method. The Teq is significantly higher than optimized Teq derived by Iwan.
Note: Both Iwan and Gulkan give similar result for ξeq.
 By Dwairi: : The period dependency was generally insignificant for period greater than 1 s
(except elastoplastic).
Basic problem in tangent stiffness: (based on Kwan’s paper)

The use of tangent stiffness to derive Teq.

- -This approach is only considered the monotonic-load displacement. The change in
stiffness of system during load-cycles is ignored.
- Many approximations are needed to evaluate the maximum response of inelastic
structural sys subjected to earthquake excitations.

- NOTE:
 DERIVE Teq FROM TANGENT STIFFNESS, BUT SHOULD NOT USE TANGENT STIFFNESS
METHOD TO DERIVE ξeq (JACOBSEN APPROACH) DERIVE OWN EQUATION TO ESTIMATE
EQUIVALENT DAMPING OR GIVE SOME ADDITIONAL VALUE TO APPROXIMATE.