Using OpenSees and

Fiber Beam-Column Elements to

Simulate the Earthquake Response
of Reinforced Concrete Walls
Laura Lowes, Dawn Lehman, and
Joshua Pugh
Research funded by the NSF (CMMI-0421577)

ResearchObjective
Developrecommendationsforsimulatingthe
earthquakeresponseofslenderRCwallsto
Enableresearchinvestigating
boththeearthquake
performanceandseismicdesign
ofwalledbuildings
Enableperformancebased
seismicdesignofwalled
buildingsinpractice

Photocourtesyof
MKASeattle

Whyusedistributedplasticity
beamcolumnelements?
Lumpedplasticity/plastichingemodels
Dontknowwhereinelasticactionwilloccurinamultistorybuilding

Fibershellmodels
Probablythepreferredapproachwithrespecttomodelingbehavior
Enablessimulationofinelasticflexureandshearresponse
Enablesaccuratesimulationofverticalstraindistributionalongwalllength
(planesectionsdontremainplane),

but
Computationaldemandsformultistory,multiwallbuildingsubjectedto
multiplegroundmotionsarequitelarge
2Dconcretecontinuummodelsnotasnumericallyrobustas1Dmodels

Distributedplasticitybeamcolumnelements
Excellentresultsforslenderwallsthatrespondprimarilyinflexure

FiberTypeBeamColumnElements
ForceBasedElement:
Assumelinearmoment
distribution,constantshear,
andconstantaxialload(along
thelengthoftheelement).
Intraelementsolutionto
determinesectionstrainsand
curvaturesthatsatisfy
compatibilityreqts.
Useoneelementperstory;
eachelementhas~5sections.

DisplacementBasedElement
Assumelinearcurvature
distributionandconstantaxial
strain(alongthelengthofthe
element).
Nointraelementsolutionreqd
Usemultipleelementsperstory;
eachelementcanhave3sections

FiberTypeBeamColumnElements
ForceBasedElement:

DisplacementBasedElement

Assumelinearmoment
Assumelinearcurvature
distributionandconstant
distributionandconstantaxial
Typical Test Specimen
axialload(alongthelengthof
strain(alongthelengthofthe
Applied Shear,
theelement).
element).
Axial Load and
Intraelementsolutionto
Nointraelementsolutionreqd.
Possibly Moment
determinesectionstrainsand
Usemultipleelementsperstory;
curvaturesthatsatisfy
elementscanhavefewersections.
compatibilityreqts.
Addsingleshearsectionateach
Aggregateflexureandshear
story.
sections.
Fixed Base
Useoneelementperstory;
Nonlinear fiber-type flexural section
eachelementhas~5sections.
Linear or nonlinear shear section

ForceBasedFiberTypeBeamColumn
ElementinOpenSees
Assume:linearmomentdistribution,constantaxialload>
solveforsectionstrainandcurvaturetosatisfycompatibility
reqts.
Fiber-type section

Flexural section

Shear section
Elastic section w/ reduced shear stiffness,
per Oyen (2006)

FiberSection:
Concrete02modelusedforconcrete

Unconfined Fibers:

Confined Fibers:

Saatcioglu & Razvi

(1992)

FiberSection:
Steel02usedforreinforcingsteel

ShearSection
Elasticmodels
Grosssectionstiffness:V=GAcv 0.4EcAcv
Reducedsectionstiffness:
Oyen (2006)usingexperimentaldatasetofplanarwalls:
V=0.1GAcv 0.04EcAcv

Nonlinearmodels
Verylimitedprevious
research
Envelopefromplanar
walldata(Oyen 2006)

v
8
2

0.06 0.1

ExperimentalDataUsedforModelEvaluation,
Calibration&Validation
19rectangular,3barbell,6cshape,4tshapedspecimensfrom
10testprograms
Allwallsareslenderwith(M/V)/lw >2
Allwallsexhibitflexuralfailuremechanisms
Crushingofboundaryelementconcrete,bucklingand/orruptureof
long.reinforcement
Wallsexhibitingwebcrushing(barbellwalls)notincluded

Allwallhavescale=tw/12in.>1/3
Axialloadratios:0.01fcAg 0.16fcAg
Shearstressdemands:1.0

6.0

psi

QuantitiesUsedforModelEvaluation,
Calibration&Validation
Typical Test Specimen
Applied Shear,
Axial Load and
Possibly Moment

Fixed Base

ForceBasedDistributedPlasticity
BeamColumnElement:
Evaluation,Calibrationand
Validation

ModelEvaluation

No.of
I.P.

No. of
Specs

Mean

COV

Mean

COV

23

0.98

0.07

0.90

0.27

23

0.97

0.08

0.90

0.27

23

0.97

0.08

0.90

0.27

Mean

COV

Mesh
Dependent

LocalizationofDamage/Deformation

Inelastic Localization

Specimen WSH4
(Dazio et al. 2009)

0.63%

NoLocalizationPriortoStrengthLoss

Specimen WSH4
(Dazio et al. 2009)

ToAchieveMeshObjectiveResults
Regularizematerialresponseusingameshdependentlength
Typicallydoneincontinuumanalysis
ColemanandSpacone (2001)proposethisforbeamcolumn
elements;
Toregularize
Concrete:Useexperimentaldatatodefineenergyunderpostpeakportion
ofthestressdeformationcurve&convertstressdeformationtostress
strainusingintegrationpointlength,LIP
Steel: Useexperimentaldatatodefinestressstrainresponseandadjust
postpeakstrengthstrainresponsebasedonratiooflaboratorygage
lengthtointegrationpointlength,LIP

Notethatregularizationofsteelhardeningresponsereqd
becausedeformationlocalizestosofteningsection

ConcreteTensileFractureEnergy
Tensilefractureenergy,Gf , commonlyusedtoregularizematerial
responseforcontinuumtypefiniteelementanalysis
SeveralstandardapproachesfordefiningGf (e.g.,RILEM50FMC)
Gf 75150N/m(WongandVecchio,2006)
RILEM50FMCLabTest
LaboratoryTestData

usedinanalysis

ConcreteMaterialRegularizationUsingGf
Hasessentiallynoimpact;thereforeignore

No mesh sensitivity in range of

demands in which concrete cracking
occurs
Thus, material regularization has no
impact

PlainConcreteCrushingEnergy
JansenandShah,1997

MaterialRegularization:PlainConcrete
Crushingenergy,Gfc =~20N/mmperJansen
andShah(1997)
LIP,1

LIP,2
LIP,1

3-I.P. Element

DetermineRequiredGfc

Useexperimentaldatafortwoplanarwallsconstructedofunconfined
concreteandexhibitingflexuralfailureduetoconcretecrushing
Gfc =60 80N/mm=2fc withfc inMPa
NotethatincreaseinGfc aboveJansenandShah20N/mmforplainconcrete
cylindersisattributedtothepresenceoflongitudinalsteel
Specimen WSH4
(Dazio et al. 2009)

Specimen WR0
(Oh et al. 2004)

LIP,1

fc/fcc

MaterialRegularization:Conf.Concrete

Gfcc

fcc

LIP,2

/co
0.2fcc

LIP,1
fc/fcc

co

3-I.P. Element
/co

c20u

DetermineRequiredGfcc
Useexperimentaldataforeightplanarwallsw/confinedconcrete
exhibitingflexuralfailureduetoconcretecrushing
Gfcc appearstobeafunctionofconfinementdetailing,but
insufficientdataformodelcalibration
(Gfcc/fcc)Mean 2.6

MaterialRegularization:Steel
Requireddespitesteelhardeningbecausedeformationslocalizeto
singlesofteningsection
Gfs /lgage determinedfrommaterialtests
Regularizedsteelstressstrainresponseusedinfibersectionmodel
determinedbyLIP
Regularizationresultsinadjustedtensilerupturestrain;include
compressivefailurestrainequaltostrainatwhichconcreteloses
80%ofcompressivestrength

Response from lab data

Regularized response model

FBBC:RegularizedResultsforPlanarWalls

FailureMode

Mean

COV

Mean

COV

Mean

COV

Crushing
(9specimens)

0.93

0.04

0.83

0.26

0.96

0.15

Rupture/Buckling
(6specimens)

0.95

0.05

1.01

0.33

1.12

0.21

Rupture
(2specimens)

0.98

0.03

0.94

0.02

1.08

0.04

OutofPlane
(2specimens)

0.98

0.03

0.94

0.28

1.31

0.08

AllFlexure

0.95

0.07

0.90

0.28

1.06

0.22

RegularizedResults:PlanarWalls
Goodresults:WSH4
Dazio etal.

Notsogoodresults:
PW4Lowesetal.

RegularizedResults:CShapedWalls
Applyregularizationmethodcalibratedfor
planarwallstoCshapedwalls:
Specimen

Loading

UW1 (Lowesetal.)

StrongAxis

1.01

1.13

1.20

W1 (Ile andReynouard)

StrongAxis

0.90

0.85

1.00

W2 (Ile andReynouard)

WeakAxis

0.94

0.87

0.77

W3 (Ile andReynouard)

BiDirectional

0.93

1.10

0.70

TUA (Beyer atal.)

BiDirectional

1.06

0.90

1.04

TUB (Beyer etal.)

BiDirectional

1.08

1.15

1.06

0.99(0.08)

1.00(0.14)

0.96(0.20)

Mean (COV)

RegularizedResults:CShapedWalls
Good:TUABeyeretal.

Notsogood:W3Ileand
Reynouard

RegularizedResults:TShapedWalls
Applyregularizationmethodcalibratedfor
planarwallstoTshapedwalls:
Specimen

Loading

TW1
(ThomsenandWallace)

Unidirectional

1.25

2.4

0.42

TW2
(ThomsenandWallace)

Unidirectional

1.00

1.6

0.45

NTW1
(Brueggen etal.)

BiDirectional

1.00

1.14

0.86

NTW2
(Brueggen etal.)

BiDirectional

0.95

1.05

0.82

1.05/0.13

1.55/0.40

0.64/0.37

Mean/COV

RegularizedResults:TShapedWalls
Good:NTW1Brueggen etal. Notsogood:ThomsenandWallace

Datashowplanesectionsdonotremain
plane,sostraindistributionisnot
correctlysimulated

DisplacementBasedDistributed
PlasticityBeamColumnElement:
Evaluation,Calibrationand
Validation

ModelEvaluation:MeshRefinement
Study
Loaddisplacement
response

Axialloadatthesection
(formulationassumes
constantaxialstrainnotforce)

ImpactofAxialLoadVariation
Softensection(i.e.criticalsection)islocatedabovethebaseof
thewallandisnotthesectionwithhighestflexuraldemand
Fibersectionatthebaseofthewallhasanaxialloadthatislargerthanthe
appliedaxialload;thisresultsinincreasedflexuralstrengthandreduced
curvatureductility.
Fibersectionabovethebaseofthewallhasanaxialloadthatissmaller
thantheappliedaxialload;thisresultsinreducedflexuralstrengthand
increasedcurvatureductility.

Accuratesimulationofdriftcapacityrequires
modificationofconcretecrushingenergiestoaccount
forerrorinsectionaxialload
Unconfined:Gfc_DBBE =Gfc_FBBE =0.28Gfc_FBBE =0.56fc withfc inMPa
Confined:Gfcc_DBBE = Gfcc_FBBE =0.28Gfcc_FBBE=0.73fcc withfcc inMPa

Conclusions

FBBC&DBBC
Strengthandstiffnessareaccuratelyandpreciselysimulatedwithoutmaterial
regularization
DBBCelementrequireslargenumberofelement&sectionstoreduce
variabilityinaxialloadandtheimpactofthisonstiffnessandstrength
FBBCelementrequiresoneelementwithfivesectionsperstory

ForcompressioncontrolledRCelements
Accuratesimulationofdriftcapacityrequiresregularizationofconcreteand
steelmaterialresponse

Forplanarandsomenonplanarwalls
Proposedregularizationmethodandunconfined/confinedconcretecrushing
energiesdeterminedfromlaboratorytestsofplanarwallsresultsinaccurate
andprecisesimulationofdriftcapacity.

Forsomenonplanarwalls
Assumptionofplanesectionsremainplaneisinadequateandlineelement
modelscannotprovideaccuratesimulationofresponse.

FutureWork
Determinelimitsforapplicationofline
elementstosimulatewallresponse:
Whendoesplanesectionsremainplane
assumptionresultinunacceptableerror.

Improvedsimulationofshearresponse
decoupledfromflexuralresponse.

AFinalNote:
ApplicationtoSimulationofRC
ColumnResponse

SimulationofRCColumnResponse
Regularizationallowssimulationofsoftening
RCcomponentresponse
Notcriticalifcriticalsectionexhibitsminimal
softeningpriortofailure
TanakaandPark(1990)

Specimen

long

Axial Load
Ratio

1.25%

0.1f cAg

1.25%

0.3f cAg

SimulationofRCColumnResponse
Lowaxialload:N=0.1fcAg
Failureduetobarbuckling&
rupture

Specimen 5 (Tanaka and Park, 1990)

Highaxialload:N=0.3fcAg
Failureduetoconcrete
crushing

Specimen 7 (Tanaka and Park, 1990)

Noregularization
Lowaxialload:
N=0.1fcAg

Specimen 5 (Tanaka and Park, 1990)

Highaxialload:
N=0.3fcAg

Specimen 7 (Tanaka and Park, 1990)

Regularization:LowAxialLoad

w/oRegularizedConcrete

w/RegularizedConcreteandSteel

w/RegularizedConcrete

Column S5 (Tanaka and Park, 1990)

Regularization:HighAxialLoad

w/oRegularizedConcrete

w/RegularizedConcreteandSteel

w/RegularizedConcrete

Column S7 (Tanaka and Park, 1990)